Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-54276 August 16, 1991 DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. IGLESIA NI KRISTO and HON. DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo, Br. III, respondents.

NARVASA, J.:p Application of the doctrine laid down in 1986 in Director of Lands v. I.A.C. 1 is all that is necessary to resolve the issue presented in the appeal at bar. The petitioner takes no issue with the factual findings of the Registration Court. In its petition 2 it makes the following recitation of the relevant facts, viz.: Respondent Iglesia ni Kristo filed an application for the registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land, with an area of 280 sq. meters, situated at Barrio Consuelo Sur, Municipality of San Marcelino, Province of Zambales. The application ... was docketed in the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo, Branch III (presided by respondent Judge) as LRC No. N-187-0. Petitioner (Republic) opposed the application on the ground that the ** Iglesia ni Kristo is a private corporation, and that under Art. XIV, sec. 11, of the Constitution, private corporations cannot acquire lands of the public domain but can only hold them by lease in an area not exceeding 1,000 hectares. ... It appears that the applicant acquired the property in question from Gregorio Rolls and Romualdo Rolls (both of San Marcelino, Zambales) on May 23,1946, as shown by the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 'I'). After acquiring the land, applicant had it declared for taxation purposes. ... ... The latest tax declaration of this same parcel of land starts with the year 1974 as per Tax Dec. No. 4763 .... The land is exempt from payment of Realty Tax, being devoted primarily for religious purposes (Exhibit N). Without passing upon the Government's contention that respondent Iglesia ni Kristo was disqualified from acquiring the land in question, the trial court rendered judgment on June 2,1980 decreeing the registration of the land in the name of the respondent (Iglesia). The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered registering and confirming the title of the applicant, Iglesia ni Kristo with its Executive Minister Erao G. Manalo as corporation sole with office and postal address at corner of Central and Don Mariano Marcos Avenues,

Diliman, Quezon City, over the parcel of land situated at Barrio Consuelo Sur, Municipality of San Marcelino, Province of Zambales, with an area of 280 sq. m. covered by Plan PSU-03-000947. (Exhibit "F"). SO ORDERED. (N.B. The decision also makes the finding that since acquiring the land, the Iglesia ni Kristo "has been in open, public, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession in the concept of an owner thereof to the present time," having in fact "put up a chapel made of concrete materials and galvanized iron for its roofing;" and that the land is not also within any military or naval reservation.) It is this decision of June 2, 1980 that is subject of the Government's petition for review on certiorari at bar. The petition will have to be denied, in accordance with the judgment of this Court en banc in Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court handed down on December 29, 1986, 3 involving substantially similar facts. That judgment reconsidered and declared "no longer ... binding precedent," Manila Electric Company v. Castro-Bartolome, et al., promulgated on June 29, 1982, 4 and instead adopted the dissenting opinion therein 5 (based on a line of cases beginning with Carino v. Insular Government in 1909 6 thru Susi v. Razon in 1925 7down toHerico v. Dar in 1980. 8 In that case, Director of Lands v. I.A.C. a private corporation, Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. purchased a tract of land in 1962 from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, two members of the Dumagat tribe, but applied with the Court for registration of its title over the land under the Torrens Act only in July, 1981, long after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution-which inter alia prohibits private corporations from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares (a prohibition not found in the 1935 Constitution, in force in 1962 when Acme purchased the land in question). There being no question that Acme and its predecessors-in-interest had possessed and occupied the land for more than the required 30-year period prescribed in Section 48 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended), 9 the question presented to the Court en banc was whether or not the title that Acme had acquired in 1962 could be confirmed in its favor in proceedings instituted by it in 1981 when the 1973 Constitution was already in effect, having in mind the prohibition therein against private corporations holdings lands of the public domain. That question the Court en banc answered in this wise: ... (The weight of authority is) that open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other auction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property. Herico (supra), in particular, appears to be squarely affirmative: ... Secondly, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1942, which the respondent Court held to be inapplicable to the petitioner's case, with the latter's proven occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years since 1914, by himself and by his predecessors-in-interest, title over the lands has vested on petitioner so as to segregate the land

from the mass of public land. Thereafter, it is no longer disposable under the Public Land Act as by free patent. ... As interpreted in several cases when the conditions as specified in the foregoing provision are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land, therefore, ceased to be of the public domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent. Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical inevitability of considering possession of public land which is of the character and duration prescribed by statute as the equivalent of an express grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself (Section 48 (b) of C.A. No. 141) that the possessor(s) "... shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title ... ." No proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption, confirmation proceedings would, in truth, be little more than a formality, at the most limited to ascertaining whether the possession claimed is of the required character and length of time; and registration thereunder would not confer title, but simply recognize a title already vested. The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land, but only confirm such a conversion already effected by operation of law from the moment the required period of possession became complete. As was so well put in Carino, '... (T)here are indications that registration was expected from all, but none sufficient to show that, for want of it, ownership actually gained would be lost. The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law. xxx xxx xxx ... The purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper. This Court has already held, in analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested rights. The substantial identity of the facts and issues between the case at bar and Director of Lands v. I.A.C. being undeniable, and being cited to no persuasive reason to decline to apply the doctrine in the latter to the former, the Court, as aforesaid, has no alternative except to rule adversely to the petitioner. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the judgment of the respondent Court dated June 2, 1980 in LRC No. N-187-0 entitled, "Iglesia ni Kristo, etc. v. Director of Lands, et al.," is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Cruz, Gancayco, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 163766 June 22, 2006

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CANDY MAKER, INC., as represented by its President, ONG YEE SEE,* Respondent DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: At bar is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the May 21, 2004 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 73287, which affirmed in toto the October 12, 2001 Decision2 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taytay, Rizal in Land Registration Case No. 99-0031 declaring respondent the owner of the parcels of land designated as Lots 3138-A and 3138-B in Plan CSD. 04-018302, Cainta-Taytay Cadastre. Sometime in 1998, Candy Maker, Inc. decided to purchase Lot No. 3138 Cad. 688 of the Cainta-Taytay Cadastre, a parcel of land located below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters, about 900 meters away from the Laguna de Bay, and bounded on the southwest by the Manggahan Floodway, and on the southeast by a legal easement. On April 1, 1998, Geodetic Engineer Potenciano H. Fernandez, prepared and signed a Subdivision Plan of the property for Apolonio Cruz. The property was subdivided into two lots: Lot No. 3138-A with an area of 10,971 square meters, and Lot No. 3138-B with an area of 239 square meters.3 The technical description of Lot No. 3138 was also prepared by Fernandez, and was approved by the Regional Technical Director of the Bureau of Lands on April 14, 1998.4 On April 29, 1999, Antonio, Eladia, and Felisa, all surnamed Cruz, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Candy Maker, Inc.5 The buyer declared Lot No. 3138 for taxation purposes in 1999 under Tax Declaration Nos. 00418929, 004-18930 and 004-18931.6 On June 16, 1999, Candy Maker, Inc., as applicant, filed an application with the MTC of Taytay, Rizal, for the registration of its alleged title over Lot No. 3138-A and Lot No. 3138-B under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. Acting thereon, the MTC issued an Order7 on June 18, 1999 directing the applicant to cause the publication of the notice of initial hearing and for the Deputy Sheriff to post the same. The Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the Directors of the Land Management Bureau (LMB) and Forest Management Bureau (FMB) were also instructed to submit their respective reports on the status of the parcels of land before the initial hearing scheduled on October 29, 1999. The Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) of Antipolo City filed on August 18, 1999 his Report8 declaring that "[t]he land falls within the Alienable and Disposable Zone, under Land Classification Project No. 5-A, per L.C. Map No. 639 certified released on March 11, 1927" and that the property is the subject of CENRO Case No. 520(97) entitled Perpetua San Jose v. Almario Cruz. On the other hand, the LRA, in its September 21, 1999 Report,9 recommended the exclusion of Lot No. 3138-B on the ground that it is a legal easement and intended for public use, hence, inalienable and indisposable. On September 30, 1999, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) approved Resolution No. 113, Series of 1993, providing that untitled shoreland areas may be leased subject to conditions enumerated therein. The applicant filed its Amended Application10 on December 15, 1999 for the confirmation of its alleged title on Lot No. 3138, alleging therein that:

1. x x x the applicant is the President of CANDYMAKER[,] INC. and registered owner of a parcel of land located at Panghulo Brgy. San Juan, Taytay, Rizal with an area of TEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE (10,971) square meters and as fully described and bounded under Lot 3138-A plan CSD-04-018302[,] copy of which and the corresponding technical descriptions are hereto attached to form parts hereof; xxxx 8. That for Lot 3138-A the applicant hereby prays for the benefit granted under the Land Registration Act and/or under the benefits provided for by P.D. No. 1529, as applicant and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, public, continuous, and peaceful occupation and possession of the said land since time immemorial in [the] concept of true owners and [adverse] to the whole world; x x x11 On March 27, 2000, the MTC issued an Order12 admitting the Amended Application and resetting the initial hearing to June 23, 2000. However, upon the requests of the LRA for the timely publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette,13 the court moved the hearing date to September 22, 2000,14 then on January 26, 200115 and until finally, to June 15, 2001.16 On July 20, 2001, the Republic of the Philippines, the LLDA filed its Opposition17 to the Amended Application in which it alleged that the lot subject of the application for registration may not be alienated and disposed since it is considered part of the Laguna Lake bed, a public land within its jurisdiction pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4850, as amended. According to the LLDA, the projection of Lot No. 3138-A, Cad-688-D Csd-04-018302 in its topographic map based on the Memorandum18 of Engineer Christopher Pedrezuela of the Engineering and Construction Division of the LLDA indicated that it is "located below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters referred to datum 10.00 meters below mean lower water" and under Section 41(11) of R.A. No. 4850, the property is a public land which forms part of the bed of the Laguna Lake. This Memorandum was appended to the application. At the hearing conducted on August 31, 2001, the applicant marked in evidence the complementary copies of the Official Gazette and the Peoples Tonight as Exhibits "E-1" and "F-1," respectively.19 Except as to the LLDA and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which was represented by the duly deputized provincial prosecutor,20 the court, upon motion of the applicant, issued an Order of general default.21 The applicant presented as witnesses its Treasurer, Fernando Co Siy, and Antonio Cruz, one of the vendees. Cruz testified that his grandparents owned the property,22 and after their demise, his parents, the spouses Apolonio Cruz and Aquilina Atanacio Cruz, inherited the lot;23 he and his father had cultivated the property since 1937, planting palay during the rainy season and vegetables during the dry season; his father paid the realty taxes on the property,24 and he (Cruz) continued paying the taxes after his fathers death.25 Cruz insisted that he was the rightful claimant and owner of the property. Sometime in the 1980s, Apolonio Cruz executed an extrajudicial deed of partition in which the property was adjudicated to Antonio Cruz and his sisters, Felisa and Eladia, to the exclusion of their five (5) other siblings who were given other properties as their shares.26 He did not know why his ancestors failed to have the property titled under the Torrens system of registration.27 He left the Philippines and stayed in Saudi Arabia from 1973 to 1983.28 Aside from this, he hired the services of an "upahan" to cultivate the property.29 The property is about 3 kilometers from the Laguna de Bay, and is usually flooded when it rains.30 Fernando Co Siy testified that the applicant acquired Lot No. 3138 from siblings Antonio, Eladia and Felisa,31 who had possessed it since 1945;32 that after paying the real estate taxes due thereon,33 it caused the survey of the lot;34 that possession thereof has been peaceful35 and none of the former owners claims any right against it;36neither the applicant nor its predecessors-in-interest received information from any government agency that the lot is a public land;37 the subject lot is 3 kms. away from Laguna de Bay,38 above its elevation and that of the nearby road;39 the property is habitable40 and was utilized as a riceland at the time it was sold by the former owners;41 and that he was aware that a legal easement is affecting the lot and is willing to annotate it in the land title.42 On cross-examination by the LLDA counsel, Siy admitted that his knowledge as to the distance of the lot with respect to the Laguna de Bay came from "somebody residing in Taytay" and also from an adjacent owner of the lot;43 that the

lot is submerged in water since there is no land fill yet;44 and that no improvements had been introduced to the property.45 The LLDA moved for a joint ocular inspection of the parcels of land in order to determine its exact elevation.46 On September 14, 2001, a Survey Team of the Engineering and Construction Division of the LLDA, composed of Ramon D. Magalonga, Virgilio M. Polanco, and Renato Q. Medenilla, conducted an actual ground survey of the property. The team used a total station and digital survey instrument to measure the elevation of the ground in reference to the elevation of the lake water. A representative of the applicant witnessed the survey. The team found that the lot is below the prescribed elevation of 12.50 m. and thus part of the bed of the lake; as such, it could not be titled to the applicant. The team also reported that the property is adjacent to the highway from the Manggahan Floodway to Angono, Rizal. The LLDA moved that the application be withdrawn, appending thereto a copy of the Survey Report.47 The LLDA did not offer any testimonial and documentary evidence and agreed to submit the case for decision based on its Opposition. On October 12, 2001, the MTC rendered a Decision granting the application for registration over the lots. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] the court hereby rendered judgment confirming title of the applicants over the real property denominated as Lot 3138-A Csd-04-018302 of Cad-688-D Cainta-Taytay Cadastre; Lot 3138-B Csd-04018302 of Cad 688-D Cainta-Taytay Cadastre.48 On appeal to the CA, the petitioner contended that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the application for registration since the actual copies of the Official Gazette (O.G.) where the notice of hearing was published were not adduced in evidence; the applicant likewise failed to establish exclusive ownership over the subject property in the manner prescribed by law. The petitioner argued further that the requirements of Section 23, par. 1 of P.D. No. 1529, 49 as amended, are mandatory and jurisdictional, and that failure to observe such requirements has a fatal effect on the whole proceedings. Citing Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals50 and Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 170,51 the Republic averred that a mere certificate of publication is inadequate proof of the jurisdictional fact of publication because the actual copies of the O.G. must be presented at the initial hearing of the case. Moreover, witnesses were not presented to prove specific acts to show that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in exclusive, open, continuous, and adverse possession of the subject lots in the concept of the owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier, in accordance with Sec. 14, par. 1 of P.D. No. 1529.52It noted that the testimonies of the applicants witnesses are more of conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of ownership. Other than the general statement that they planted rice and vegetables on the subject lots, their possession could properly be characterized as mere casual cultivation since they failed to account for its exclusive utilization since 1945 or earlier. After stressing that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, it concluded that the subject lots rightfully belong to the State under the Regalian doctrine.53 The applicant averred in its Appellees Brief54 that it had marked in evidence the actual copy of the O.G. where the notice of initial hearing was published; in fact, the MTC Decision stated that the copy of the O.G. containing the notice was referred to as Exhibit "E-1." Moreover, Sec. 14, par. 1 of P.D. 1529 is inapplicable since it speaks of possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Instead, par. 4 of the same section55 should govern because the subject parcels of land are lands of private ownership, having being acquired through purchase from its predecessors-in-interest, who, in turn, inherited the same from their parents. It pointed out that there were no adverse claims of interest or right by other private persons and even government agencies like the Province of Rizal. Lastly, while tax declarations and tax receipts do not constitute evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless prima facie evidence of possession. On May 21, 2004, the appellate court rendered judgment which dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the Decision of the MTC,56 holding that the copy of the O.G., where the notice was published, was marked as Exhibit "E1" during the initial hearing. On the issue of ownership over the subject lots, the CA upheld the applicants claim that the parcels of land were alienable and not part of the public domain, and that it had adduced preponderant evidence to prove that its predecessors had been tilling the land since 1937, during which palay and vegetables were planted. In fact, before the lots were purchased, the applicant verified their ownership with the assessors office, and thereafter caused the property to be surveyed; after the lots were acquired in 1999 and a survey was caused by the applicant, no adverse claims were filed by third persons. Further, the CA ruled that tax declarations or tax receipts are good indicia of possession in the concept of the owner, which constitute at least positive and strong indication that the taxpayer concerned has made a claim either to the title or to the possession of the property.

The Republic, now petitioner, filed the instant Petition for Review on the following issues: A. WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION MAYBE THE SUBJECT OF REGISTRATION. B. WHETHER THE COURT A QUO ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE RES CONSIDERING ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTER. C. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDING THAT RESPONDENT COMPLIED WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ON POSSESSION AS MANDATED BY SECTION 14 OF P.D. NO. 1529.57 Petitioner asserts that the Engineers Survey Report58 and the Laguna de Bay Shoreland Survey59 both show that Lot No. 3138-A is located below the reglementary lake elevation, hence, forms part of the Laguna Lake bed. It insists that the property belongs to the public domain as classified under Article 502 of the Civil Code.60 Citing the ruling of this Court in Bernardo v. Tiamson,61 petitioner avers that the subject lot is incapable of private appropriation since it is a public land owned by the State under the Regalian doctrine. On this premise, petitioner avers that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and as a consequence, its decision is null and void. Petitioner maintains that respondent failed to present incontrovertible evidence to warrant the registration of the property in its name as owner. The testimonies of the two witnesses only proved that the possession of the land may be characterized as mere casual cultivation; they failed to prove that its predecessors occupied the land openly, continuously, exclusively, notoriously and adversely in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier. On the other hand, respondent argues that the Engineers Survey Report and the Laguna de Bay Shoreland Survey have no probative value because they were neither offered nor admitted in evidence by the MTC. It points out that petitioner failed to invoke these reports in the appellate court. It was only when the petition was filed with this Court that the respondent learned of its existence. Petitioners reliance on the reports/survey is merely an afterthought. The case of Bernardo v. Tiamson is irrelevant because the factual issues are different from those of this case. On April 28, 2005, respondent filed a Manifestation62 with this Court, appending thereto the report63 conducted by the survey team of the LLDA Engineering and Construction Division on April 12, 2005. It stated that the 10,971 sq m property subject of the case is below the 12.5 elevation, and that the profile distance of the property from the actual lake waters is about 900 m. to 1 km. The issues in this case are the following: (1) whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the amended application; (2) whether the property subject of the amended application is alienable and disposable property of the State, and, if so, (3) whether respondent adduced the requisite quantum of evidence to prove its ownership over the property under Section 14 of P.D. 1529. The petition is meritorious. On the first issue, we find and so rule that the MTC acquired jurisdiction over respondents application for registration since a copy of the O.G. containing the notice of hearing was marked and adduced in evidence as Exhibit "E-1." The representative of the OSG was present during the hearing and interposed his objection thereto. On the second and third issues, we find and so rule that the property subject of this application was alienable and disposable public agricultural land until July 18, 1966. However, respondent failed to prove that it possesses registerable title over the property.

Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by R.A. No. 1942, reads: Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, nay apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. This provision was further amended by P.D. No. 1073 by substituting the phrase "for at least thirty years" with "since June 12, 1945;" thus: Sec. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession, and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945. Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides: SEC. 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier (emphasis supplied). Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.64 Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The presumption is that lands of whatever classification belong to the State.65 Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.66 The statute of limitations with regard to public agricultural lands does not operate against the State unless the occupant proves possession and occupation of the same after a claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State.67 No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant from the government, whether express or implied. It is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from the State.68 The rationale for the period "since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945" lies in the presumption that the land applied for pertains to the State, and that the occupants or possessor claim an interest thereon only by virtue of their imperfect title as continuous, open and notorious possession. A possessor of real property may acquire ownership thereof through acquisitive prescription. In Alba Vda. de Raz v. Court of Appeals,69 the Court declared that: x x x [W]hile Art. 1134 of the Civil Code provides that (o)wnership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years, this provision of law must be read in conjunction with Art. 1117 of the same Code. This article states that x x x (o)rdinary acquisitive prescription of things requires possession in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law. Hence, a prescriptive title to real estate is not

acquired by mere possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of ten years unless such possession was acquired con justo titulo y buena fe (with color of title and good faith). The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. For purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the recognized modes of acquisition of ownership or other real rights but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.70 To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, or administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator or a legislative act or statute.71 Until then, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. A certification of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources stating that the land subject of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable site per a land classification project map is sufficient evidence to show the real character of the land subject of the application.72 The applicant is burdened to offer proof of specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim over the land.73Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would actually exercise over his own property.74 A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute sufficient basis for a claim of ownership; such possession is not exclusive and notorious as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State.75 In this case, the evidence on record shows that the property is alienable agricultural land. Romeo Cadano of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, Antipolo Rizal, certified that the property "falls within the Alienable and Disposable zone, under Land Classification Project No. 5-A, per L.C. Map No. 639 certified released on March 11, 1927."76 However, under R.A. No. 4850 which was approved on July 18, 1966, lands located at and below the maximum lake level of elevation of the Laguna de Bay are public lands which form part of the bed of said lake. Such lands denominated as lakeshore areas are linear strips of open space designed to separate incompatible element or uses, or to control pollution/nuisance, and for identifying and defining development areas or zone. Such areas of the lake with an approximate total area of 14,000 hectares form a strip of the lakebed along its shores alternately submerged or exposed by the annual rising and lowering of the lake water. They have environmental ecological significance and actual potential economic benefits. Under Section 1 of the law, the national policy of the State is to promote and accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social and economic development and to carry out the development of the Laguna Lake region with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. The rapid expansion of Metropolitan Manila, the suburbs and the lakeshore town of Laguna de Bay, combined with current and prospective uses of the lake for municipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like, created deep concern on the part of the Government and the general public over the environmental impact of such development, on the water quality and ecology of the lake and its related river systems. The inflow of polluted water from the Pasig River, industrial, domestic and agricultural wastes from developed areas around the lake and the increasing urbanization have induced the deterioration of the lake, and that water quality studies have shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same. The floods in the Metropolitan Manila area and the lakeshore towns are also influenced by the hydraulic system of the Laguna de Bay, and any scheme of controlling the floods will necessarily involve the lake and its river systems. This prompted then President Ferdinand E. Marcos to issue on October 17, 1978 P.D. 813 amending Rep. Act No. 4850. Under Section 6 of the law, the LLDA is empowered to issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively carry out the policies and programs therein provided including the policies and projects of the LLDA, subject to the approval of the National Economic Development Authority. In 1996, the Board of Directors of LLDA approved Resolution No. 113, series of 1996 relating to the Environmental Uses Fee Systems and Approval of the Work and Financial Plan for its operationalization in the Laguna de Bay Basin. Section 5 of the Resolution provides that the LLDA as a matter of policy is to maintain all shoreland areas lying below elevation 12.50 meters as buffer zone in consonance with the LLDA policies, plans programs for the improvement of the water quality and pollution and conservation of the water resources of the Laguna de Bay.

As gleaned from the Survey Report of Magalonga, Polanco and Medenilla of the LLDA based on the ocular inspection dated September 14, 2001 as well as the Memorandum of Engineer Christopher Pedrezuela, the property is located below the reglementary level of 12.50 m.; hence, part of the bed of the Laguna de Bay, and, as such, is public land. Although the Report and Memorandum were not offered as evidence in the MTC, the respondent admitted in its Manifestation in this Court that the property is situated below the 12.50 elevation based on the survey of Magalonga, Polanco and Medenilla, the same survey team who conducted an ocular inspection of the property on April 12, 2005, which thus confirmed the September 14, 2001 survey report. This is a judicial admission in the course of judicial proceedings which is binding on it.77 Under R.A. No. 4850 and the issuances of LLDA, registerable rights acquired by occupants before the effectivity of the law are recognized. However, the respondent failed to adduce proof that its predecessors-in-interest had acquired registerable title over the property before July 18, 1966: First. Cruz failed to prove how his parents acquired ownership of the property, and even failed to mention the names of his grandparents. He likewise failed to present his fathers death certificate to support his claim that the latter died in 1980. There is likewise no evidence when his mother died. Second. Cruz also failed to adduce in evidence the extrajudicial partition allegedly executed by his parents in 1980 where the property was supposedly deeded to him and his sisters, Felisa and Eladia, to the exclusion of their five siblings. Third. Cruz claimed that he and his parents cultivated the property and planted palay and vegetables, and that they had been paying the realty taxes over the property before his parents died. However, no tax declarations under the names of the spouses Apolonio Cruz and/or Eladia Cruz and his siblings were presented, or realty tax receipts evidencing payment of such taxes. Indeed, while tax receipts and tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,78 these are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession.79 While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property, particularly when accompanied by proof of actual possession of property.80 The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests ones sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens ones bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.81 Fourth. When he testified on October 5, 2001, Antonio Cruz declared that he was "74 years old."82 He must have been born in 1927, and was thus merely 10 years old in 1937. It is incredible that, at that age, he was already cultivating the property with his father. Moreover, no evidence was presented to prove how many cavans of palay were planted on the property, as well as the extent of such cultivation, in order to support the claim of possession with a bona fide claim of ownership. Fifth. Cruz testified that he hired a worker "upahan" to help him cultivate the property. He, however, failed to state the name of the worker or to even present him as witness for the respondent. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 73278 is SET ASIDE. The Municipal Trial Court of Taytay, Rizal is DIRECTED to dismiss the application for registration of respondent Candymaker, Inc. in Land Registration Case No. 99-0031. No costs. SO ORDERED. ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129682. March 21, 2002]

NESTOR PAGKATIPUNAN and ROSALINA MAAGASPAGKATIPUNAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision [1] of the Court of Appeals nullifying the decision of the Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon [2] which confirmed petitioners title over the lots subject of the instant petition. Petitioners further seek to annul and set aside the resolutions [3] of the Court of Appeals denying their urgent motion to recall the judgment entered [4] in the land registration case. The antecedent facts are as follows: Sometime in November 1960, petitioners predecessors-in-interest, spouses Getulio Pagkatipunan and Lucrecia Esquires, filed with the Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon an application for judicial confirmation and registration of their title to Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-174406 and Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-112066, all located in San Narciso, Quezon.[5] On May 4, 1961, the Court of First Instance entered an order of default against the whole world, except spouses Felicisimo Almace and Teodulo Medenilla who were given ten (10) days to file their written opposition as regards Lot No. 2 of Plan Psu174406. Upon motion of petitioners predecessors, Lot No. 2 of Plan Psu-174406 was removed from the coverage of the application. The remaining parcel of land covered by Lot No. 1 has an area of 3,804.261 square meters. On June 15, 1967, the Court of First Instance promulgated a decision confirming petitioners title to the property. On October 23, 1967, OCT No. O-12665 was issued in the name of petitioners. Almost eighteen (18) years later, or on September 12, 1985, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the Intermediate Appellate Court an action to declare the proceedings in LRC Case No. 91-G, LRC Record No. N-19930 before the Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon null and void, and to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 0-12665 and titles derived therefrom as null and void, to direct the register

of deeds to annul said certificates of title, and to confirm the subject land as part of the public domain.[6] The Republic claimed that at the time of filing of the land registration case and of rendition of the decision on June 15, 1967, the subject land was classified as timberland under LC Project No. 15-B of San Narciso, Quezon, as shown in BF Map No. LC-1180; hence inalienable and not subject to registration. Moreover, petitioners title thereto can not be confirmed for lack of showing of possession and occupation of the land in the manner and for the length of time required by Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended. Neither did petitioners have any fee simple title which may be registered under Act No. 496, as amended. Consequently, the Court of First Instance did not acquire jurisdiction over the res and any proceedings had therein were null and void.[7] On the other hand, petitioners raised the special defenses of indefeasibility of title and res judicata. They argued that due to the lapse of a considerable length of time, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in the land registration case has become final and conclusive against the Republic. Moreover, the action for reversion of the land to the public domain is barred by prior judgment. [8] In a decision promulgated on June 27, 1986, the Intermediate Appellate Court held that the land in question was forestral land; hence not registrable. There was no evidence on record to show that the land was actually and officially delimited and classified as alienable or disposable land of the public domain. Therefore, the Court of First Instance did not acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application for registration and to decide the same. Consequently, the action to declare null and void the June 15, 1967 decision for lack of jurisdiction did not prescribe. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of petitioner and against respondents, and as prayed for: (a) The Decision dated June 15, 1967 in LRC Case No. 91-G, LRC Record No. N19930 is hereby declared null and void, and accordingly set aside; (b) Original Certificate of Title No. O-12665, and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-84439, T-93857 and T-117618 deriving therefrom, as well as any other derivative titles, are declared null and void; (c) The respondent Register of Deeds for Quezon Province is ordered to cancel said titles; and (d) The parcels of land covered thereby are ordered reverted to the State.

Without pronouncement as to costs.[9] On July 16, 1986, petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the afore-cited decision[10] reiterating that the land in question was agricultural because it was possessed and cultivated as such long before its classification as timberland by the Bureau of Forestry in 1955. Petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation of said land for agricultural and cattle raising purposes as far back as the Spanish regime. Following the doctrine in Oracoy v. Director of Lands,[11] private interest had intervened and petitioners acquired vested rights which can no longer be impaired by the subsequent classification of the land as timberland by the Director of Forestry. On August 20, 1986, the appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.[12] On December 12, 1986, the decision of June 27, 1986 attained finality and judgment was entered in the book of entries of judgments. [13] On April 2, 1987, petitioners filed an urgent motion to set aside entry of judgment on the ground that Atty. Cirilo E. Doronila, petitioners counsel of record, was not furnished a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. [14] In the absence of such notice, the decision of the appellate court did not become final and executory. On October 22, 1987, the Court of Appeals set aside and lifted the entry of judgment in CA-G. R. SP No. 07115 and directed the clerk of court to furnish petitioners counsel a copy of the August 20, 1986 resolution. [15] For petitioners inaction despite service of the August 20, 1986 resolution, the June 27, 1986 decision became final and executory. On March 2, 1988, entry of judgment was again made in the land registration case. On September 4, 1995, Atty. Doronila withdrew his appearance as counsel for petitioners.[16] On April 1, 1996, petitioners, through their new counsel, Atty. George I. Howard, filed with the Court of Appeals an urgent motion to recall the entry of judgment, [17] which was denied by the appellate court on December 16, 1996. [18] The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on the ground that it raised arguments already discussed and resolved in the urgent motion to recall entry of judgment.[19] Hence, the instant petition for review.[20] Petitioners claim that their title to the land became incontrovertible and indefeasible one (1) year after issuance of the decree of registration. Hence, the Republics cause of action was barred by prescription and res judicata, proceedings

having been initiated only after about 18 years from the time the decree of registration was made. Contrary to the appellate courts findings, the land is agricultural and the inclusion and classification thereof by the Bureau of Forestry in 1955 as timberland can not impair the vested rights acquired by petitioners predecessors-in-interest who have been in open, continuous, adverse and public possession of the land in question since time immemorial and for more than thirty (30) years prior to the filing of the application for registration in 1960. Hence, the Court of Appeals committed grave error when it denied their motion to set aside entry of judgment in the land registration case. The petition lacks merit. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.[21] Evidence extant on record showed that at the time of filing of the application for land registration and issuance of the certificate of title over the disputed land in the name of petitioners, the same was timberland and formed part of the public domain, as per certification issued by the Bureau of Forest Development on April 1, 1985, thus: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that the tract of land situated in Vigo Cantidang, San Narciso, Quezon, containing an area of 3,804.261 square meters as described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-117618 x x x registered in the name of Spouses Nestor E. Pagkatipunan and Rosalina Magas is verified to be within the Timberland Block -B, Project No. 15-B of San Narciso, Quezon, certified and declared as such on August 25, 1955 per BFD Map LC-1880. The land is, therefore, within the administrative jurisdiction and control of the Bureau of Forest Development, and not subject to disposition under the Public Land Law. [Sgd.]ARMANDO CRUZ Supervising Cartographer[22] This fact was even admitted by petitioners during the proceedings before the court a quo on March 10, 1986, when they confirmed that the land has been classified as forming part of forest land, albeit only on August 25, 1955.[23] Since no imperfect title can be confirmed over lands not yet classified as disposable or alienable, the title issued to herein petitioners is considered void ab initio.[24] Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with

the conservation of such patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[25] To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. [26] In the case at bar, there was no evidence showing that the land has been reclassified as disposable or alienable. Before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from the government. Even rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. [27] Declassification of forest land is an express and positive act of Government. [28] It cannot be presumed. Neither should it be ignored nor deemed waived.[29] It calls for proof.[30] The court a quo found registrable title in favor of petitioners based on the Republics failure to show that the land is more valuable as forest land than for agricultural purposes, a finding which is based on a wrong concept of what is forest land. There is a big difference between forest as defined in the dictionary and forest or timber land as a classification of land of the public domain in the Constitution. One is descriptive of what appears on the land while the other is a legal status, a classification for legal purposes. The forest land started out as a forest or vast tracts of wooded land with dense growths of trees and underbrush. However, the cutting down of trees and the disappearance of virgin forest do not automatically convert the land of the public domain from forest or timber land to alienable agricultural land.[31] The classification of forest land, or any land for that matter, is descriptive of its legal nature or status, and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.[32] A person cannot enter into forest land and by the simple act of cultivating a portion of that land, earn credits towards an eventual confirmation of imperfect title. The Government must first declare the forest land to be alienable and disposable agricultural land before the year of entry, cultivation, and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted for purposes of an imperfect title. [33] As ruled in the case of Heirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of Forestry: [34] A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. Forest lands do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove

trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. Moreover, the original text of Section 48 (b), Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act, which took effect on December 1, 1936, expressly provided that only agricultural land of the public domain are subject to acquisitive prescription, to wit: Section 48. x x x (a) xxx

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation ofagricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, except as against the Government, since July twenty-six, eighteen hundred and ninetyfour, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is clear that the applicant must prove not only his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land either since time immemorial or for the period prescribed therein, but most importantly, he must prove that the land is alienable public land. [35] In the case at bar, petitioners failed to do so. Petitioners contention that the Republic is now barred from questioning the validity of the certificate of title issued to them considering that it took the government almost eighteen (18) years to assail the same is erroneous. It is a basic precept that prescription does not run against the State. [36] The lengthy occupation of the disputed land by petitioners cannot be counted in their favor, as it remained part of the patrimonial property of the State, which property, as stated earlier, is inalienable and indisposable.[37] In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals did not err when it set aside the June 15, 1967 decision of the court a quo and ordered that the subject lot be reverted back to the public domain. Since the land in question is unregistrable, the land registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the same. Any proceedings had or judgment rendered therein is void and is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals rightfully denied petitioners motion to set aside the judgment rendered on December 12, 1986, in the land registration case. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 1986 in AC-G.R. SP No. 07115, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Puno, J., on official leave.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127296. January 22, 1998]

EDUBIGIS GORDULA, CELSO V. FERNANDEZ, JR., CELSO A. FERNANDEZ, NORA ELLEN ESTRELLADO, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, J.F. FESTEJO AND CO., INC. AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (represented by the National Power
Corporation), respondents.

DECISION
PUNO, J.:

Before us is a petition to affirm the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, which was reversed by the respondent Court of Appeals in its Decision dated June 20, 1996 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 45466. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent court on November 15, 1996.
[1] [2]

The facts show that on June 26, 1969, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 573 withdrawing from sale and settlement and setting aside as permanent forest reserves, subject to private rights, certain parcels of the public domain denominated as follows:
[3]

Parcel No. 1 - Magat River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 2 - Chico River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 3 - Abulug River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 4 - Penaranda River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 5 - Angat River-Bustos Dam Forest Reserve Parcel No. 6 - Ambayawan River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 7 - Umiray River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 8 - Kaliwa River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 9 - Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve Parcel No. 10 - Barit River-Lake Buhi Forest Reserve

Parcel No. 11 - Jalaur River Forest Reserve

They were primarily for use as watershed area. Their development was to be undertaken by the Bureau of Forestry, with the cooperation of, among other government agencies, the National Power Corporation (Napocor). Located in Talaongan, Cavinti, Laguna with an area of Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seven (29,707) square meters, and bearing the following boundaries:

North - National Power Corporation South - Road and Baldomero Halili West - National Power Corporation East - National Power Corporation
the parcel of land subject of the case at bar is, by petitioners' explicit admission, within Parcel No. 9, the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve.
[4]

More than three years after the land was segregated as part of the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve, or on January 9, 1973, petitioner Edubigis Gordula, a native of Cavinti, Laguna, filed with the Bureau of Lands, an Application for a Free Patent over the land. Manuel Fernandez and several others also filed free patent applications covering other parcels of land in the area.
[5]

On February 5, 1973, petitioner Gordula declared the land for taxation purposes in his name as shown in Tax Declaration No. 0429. The Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands referred the free patent applications of petitioner Gordula, Fernandez, and several others to Mr. Ravanal Ravanzo, then the General Manager of the Napocor. Mr. Ravanzo responded through the following letter:

"October 24, 1973 The Director Regional Lands Office No. IV 757 Gen. Solano St. San Miguel, Manila S i r: This refers to the Free Patent Application[s] of Manuel Fernandez, et al., of Barrio Talaongan, Cavinti, Laguna, which were referred to this Office for

clearance it having been found that they are within the Caliraya-Lumot Watershed Reservation under Proclamation No. 573 dated June 26, 1969. Investigation conducted by this Office reveals that applicants have sufficient ground to establish `priority rights' over the areas claimed and that agricultural improvements introduced thereon are not detrimental to the watershed. In view thereof, this Office interpose[s] no objection to the application by the applicants contained in your letter dated October 2, 1973. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) R.R. RAVANZO General Manager"
On December 10, 1973, petitioner Gordula had the land surveyed; Survey Plan No. F(IV-5) 949-D under his name was approved by the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands. Thereafter, Mr. Amundo Munda, a Land Inspector of the Bureau of Lands, conducted the requisite investigations. On January 17, 1974, petitioner Gordula's Application for Free Patent was approved. Free Patent No. 693 was issued in his name. On January 30, 1974, the Register of Deeds of Laguna issued, on the basis of Free Patent No. 693, Original Certificate of Title No. P-1405 in the name of petitioner Gordula. He declared the land anew for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration NO. 6498. He paid its real estate taxes from 1975 to 1979. In the meantime, respondent Republic, through the Napocor, contracted the Certeza Surveying Company to survey the area constituting the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve. The survey plans were approved by the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands on October 27, 1975. The said survey plans, as well as the Cadastral Map of Talaongan and the Geological Plan of the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve, show that petitioner Gordula's land is located in the saddle area of the watershed recreation for the hydroelectric reservoir. On January 22, 1979, petitioner Gordula sold the land to petitioner Celso V. Fernandez, Jr. for six thousand pesos (P6,000.00). The Register of Deeds of Laguna cancelled Original Certificate of Title No. P-1405 and issued, in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85445 in the name of petitioner Fernandez, Jr. The latter declared the land for taxation purposes in his name.

On March 12, 1979, Fernandez, Jr. executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land in favor of petitioner Celso A. Fernandez for six thousand five hundred pesos (P6,500.00). Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85445 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 85594 was issued on March 21, 1979 in the name of petitioner Fernandez. As approved by the Bureau of Lands in Psd-Plan 04-014230, petitioner Fernandez subdivided the land into nine (9) lots. On August 16, 1985, the Register of Deeds of Laguna issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 102492 to 102500 in his name covering the nine (9) subdivision lots. On August 29, 1985, he sold the lots to petitioner Nora Ellen Estrellado for twenty one thousand pesos (P21,000.00). Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 102492 to 102500 were cancelled, and in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-103404 to T103412 were issued to petitioner Estrellado. On October 17, 1986, petitioner Estrellado mortgaged to petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) four (4) of the (9) lots. Another lot, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 103408, was sold to petitioner J.F. Festejo Company, Inc. to whom was issued, in lieu of the former, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106495.
[6]

On July 16, 1987, former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 224 vesting in the Napocor "complete jurisdiction, control and regulation" over the "Caliraya-Lumot Watershed Reservation as covered by Proclamation No. 573".
[7]

On July 26, 1987, Mr. Antonio Aquino, Jr., the Civil Security Officer of the Cavinti reservoir complex, sent a Memorandum to the President of the Napocor informing him of the fences and roads being constructed in the saddle area, more particularly, in the lots sold by petitioner Fernandez to petitioner Estrellado. On July 28, 1987, Mr. A. Coronado, the Manager of the Cavinti reservoir complex, asked petitioner Fernandez to remove all the improvements made in the Estrellado lots. In reply, petitioner Fernandez claimed that the roads being constructed would not adversely affect the reservoir area in case of heavy floods because the Estrellado lots were elevated at a height of around fifty (50) feet. In view of petitioner Fernandez's refusal, the Napocor assigned two (2) security guards over the lot. The guards ordered the construction workers to leave their posts and barred their return without permission from the Napocor. On October 18, 1987, petitioner Fernandez, as attorney-in-fact and counsel of petitioner Estrellado, wrote to the President of the Napocor threatening to file a multimillion damage suit if the guards were not removed within fifteen (15) days. On November 18, 1987, respondent Republic, through the Napocor, filed against petitioners a Complaint for Annulment of Free Patent and Cancellation of Titles and Reversion with Writ of Preliminary Injunction in the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. On January 29, 1988, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon a bond of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
[8]

On December 28, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. The dispositive portion of its decision states:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against plaintiff: (1) Dismissing plaintiff's complaint and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case; (2) Ordering National Power Corporation to pay defendant Celso A. Fernandez P300,000.00 as actual damages and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees; and With costs against the plaintiff. SO ORDERED."[9]
Respondent Republic, through the Napocor, elevated the case to the respondent Court of Appeals. On June 20, 1996, the respondent Court of Appeals ruled against petitioners. It held, inter alia, viz:

"The kernel and primal issue to be resolved by the Court is whether or not Free Patent No. IV-5(693) and Original Certificate of Title No. P-1405 and all derivative titles thereafter issued to the Appellees x x x are null and void. The Appellant avers that the parcel of land covered by the aforesaid Free Patent issued to Gordula is a portion of the vast track of land reserved by former President Marcos as permanent forest under Proclamation No. 573 dated June 26, 196[9] x x x and hence, non-disposable and inalienable, pursuant to Section 88 in relation to Section 83 of Commonwealth Act [No.] 141, as amended. In contrast, the Court a quo dismissed Appellant's complaint, in the light of the exclusionary clause in Proclamation No. 573 x x x that the setting up of the permanent forest reserves over the Caliraya-Lumot Watershed area was `subject to private rights' if there be any and the letterclearance of the then General Manager of [Napocor] x x x dated October 24, 1973, interposing no objection to the Application for a free patent of Manuel Fernandez, et al. xxx We are convinced, beyond cavil, that the parcel of land subject of the Free Patent issued to Gordula on January 17, 1974 and covered by Original

Certificate of Title No. P-1405 issued on January 30, 1974 x x x as the two (2) parcels of land purportedly purchased by the [Republic] from Perez and Glorioso in 1941, were public disposable and alienable lands before the issuance, by the former President, of Proclamation No. 573, on June 26, 196[9]. x x x The property was, however, later reserved, under Proclamation No. 573, as a permanent forest, on June 26, 196[9]. Since then, the property became non-disposable and inalienable public land. x x x xxx At the time Gordula filed his application for a Free Patent, on January 9, 1973, the parcel of land x x x was already reserved as a permanent forest under Proclamation No. 573. Since the property was already a forest reservation as of June 26, 196[9], the same could no longer be disposed of or alienated in favor of private individuals x x x. xxx We do not agree with Appellees' and the Court a quo's pose that Gordula's property was exempt from the application of Proclamation No. 573 because, by express provision thereof, the reservation was `subject to private rights, if there be any' x x x. Appellees failed to adduce proof that, as of June 26, 196[9], Gordula had acquired ownership or title to the aforesaid property either by deed or by any other mode of acquisition from the State by operation of law for that matter such as for instance, alienable public land held by a possessor personally, or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed period of thirty (30) years, is converted into private property by mere lapse of period ipso jure x x x. In the present recourse, Gordula, as of 196[9], had been in possession of the property for only [twenty-five (25) years] years since 1944 when he commenced, as can be gleaned from his application x x x for a free patent, possession of the property. The period of Gordula's occupancy after 196[9] should not be tacked to the period from 1944 because by then the property was not susceptible of occupancy, disposition, conveyance or alienation. x x x xxx The Appellees cannot find refuge in the letter of the then General Manager of [Napocor], Ravanal Ravanzo, on October 24, 1973 x x x.

In the first place, Ravanzo made no explicit and unequivocal statement, in said letter, that Gordula had priority rights to the property. What he merely declared was that `applicants have sufficient ground to establish priority rights over the areas claimed x x x'. Even if it may be conceded, for the nonce, that indeed, Ravanzo declared that Gordula had priority rights over the property claimed by him, such a declaration is irrefragably erroneous. Munda and the Director of Lands erred in recommending the approval of Gordula's application in the same manner that the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources erred in issuing the patent to Gordula. But then, well-settled is the doctrine, enunciated by the Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, that the State cannot be bound and estopped by the errors or mistakes of its agents or officials x x x. The General Manager of the Appellant is not vested with authority to allow the occupancy or acquisition, by private individuals, of such properties, whether still needed by the Appellant or not, reserved by the President of the Philippines for permanent forests. Only the President or [the] Congress, by statutory fiat, can revert the property to the disposable or alienable portion of the public domain. Anent Appellees' plea that they are buyers of the property in good faith, they must harken to the Decision of the Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 148 SCRA 480 that: `x x x even assuming that the transferees are innocent purchasers for value, their titles to said lands derived from the titles of private respondents which were not validly issued as they cover lands still a part of the public domain, may be cancelled.' x x x We do not agree with Appellees' claim that Appellant's suit was barred by prescription and by the purported indefeasibility of their title. Prescription, basically, does not run against the State. The right of the State for the reversion of unlawfully acquired property is not barred by prescription nor by the perceived indefeasibility of Appellees' title for that matter. x x x"[10]
Thus states the dispositive portion of the decision of respondent appellate court:

"IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Another Decision is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Free Patent No. IV-5-693 and Original Certificate of Title No. P1405 issued under the name of Edubigis Gordula and all derivative titles issued to the Appellees are hereby declared null and void; 2. The parcel of land covered by said titles is hereby declared reverted to the Government under the jurisdiction, control and supervision of the [Napocor] under Executive Order No. 224 of former President Corazon C. Aquino; 3. The Appellees and all those acting for and in their behalf are hereby prohibited from intruding into and disturbing the Appellant of its possession and dominion of the subject property; [and] 4. Appellees' counterclaims are DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED."[11]
Hence, this petition anchored on the following grounds:

"FIRST RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS WITHIN THE LANDS BOUGHT BY THE NPC EITHER FROM GERONIMO PEREZ ON MARCH 10, 1941 AND/OR FROM CELERINO GLORIOSO ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1941; SECOND ON [sic] THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 19 UP TO PAGE 23, LAST PAGE OF THE DECISION, THE RESPONDENT COURT WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE WHICH RESULTED [IN THE] REVERSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT X X X; THIRD THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT COURT CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER EDUBIGIS GORDULA HAD ACQUIRED `PRIVATE RIGHTS' ON THE SUBJECT LAND, WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION UNDER

PROCLAMATION NO. 573. HENCE, THIS CASE IS A QUESTION OF FACTS AND OF LAW. X X X; FOURTH THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS WITHIN THE AREA OF PROCLAMATION NO. 573. HOWEVER THE RESPONDENT [COURT] GRAVELY ERRED TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT WENT TO THE EXTENT OF DISCUSSING ON [sic] THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND INVESTIGATION RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE TITLE TO PETITIONER EDUBIGIS GORDULA AND AFTERWARD DECLARED THAT GORDULA WHO HAS A TITLE ON THE SUBJECT LAND HAS NOT ACQUIRED `PRIVATE RIGHTS' ON THE LAND DESPITE OF [sic] THE FACT THAT SAID RESPONDENT COURT IS ALREADY PRECLUDED FROM DISCUSSING THE FACTS RELATIVE ON [sic] THE ISSUANCE OF THE TITLE BY AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, MORE SO ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION IS [sic] AGAINST THE LAW, JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS IS AGAINST THE RULING IN ESPINOSA VS. MAKALINTAL, 79 PHIL. 134 and ORTUA VS. SINGSON ENCARNACION, 5[9] PHIL. 440; and FIFTH THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THEN GENERAL MANAGER RAVANZO OF NPC AND UNDERSECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE BY AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES ERRED IN ISSUING THE PATENT TO PETITIONER GORDULA. THIS IS AGAINST THE RULING IN ESPINOSA VS. MAKALINTAL, 79 PHIL. 134 and ORTUA VS. SINGSON ENCARNACION, 5[9] PHIL. 440."[12]
We affirm the Court of Appeals. We start with the proposition that the sovereign people, represented by their lawfully constituted government, have untrammeled dominion over the forests on their native soil. Forest lands, being the self-replenishing, versatile and all-important natural resource that they are, need to be reserved and saved to promote the people's welfare. By their very nature or by executive or statutory fiat, they are outside the commerce of man, unsusceptible of private appropriation in any form, and inconvertible into any character less than of inalienable public domain, regardless of their actual state, for as long as the reservation subsists and is not revoked by a subsequent valid declassification.
[13] [14] [15]

"Once again, we reiterate the rule enunciated by this Court in Director of Forestry vs. Muoz and consistently adhered to in a long line of cases the more recent of which is Republic vs. Court Appeals, that forest lands or forest reserves are incapable of private appropriation, and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private properties. This ruling is premised on the Regalian doctrine enshrined not only in the 1935 and 1973 Constitution but also in the 1987 Constitution."[16]
Petitioners do not contest the nature of the land in the case at bar. It is admitted that it lies in the heart of the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve, which Proclamation No. 573 classified as inalienable and indisposable. Its control was vested in the NAPOCOR under E.O. No. 224. Petitioners, however, contend that Proclamation No. 573 itself recognizes private rights of landowners prior to the reservation. They claim to have established their private rights to the subject land. We do not agree. No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied from the government; it is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from the state. The facts show that petitioner Gordula, did not acquire title to the subject land prior to its reservation under Proclamation No. 573. He filed his application for free patent only in January, 1973, more than three (3) years after the issuance of Proclamation No. 573 in June, 1969. At that time, the land, as part of the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve, was no longer open to private ownership as it has been classified as public forest reserve for the public good.
[17]

Nonetheless, petitioners insist that the term, "private rights", in Proclamation No. 573, should not be interpreted as requiring a title. They opine that it suffices if the claimant "had occupied and cultivated the property for so many number of years, declared the land for taxation purposes, [paid] the corresponding real estate taxes [which are] accepted by the government, and [his] occupancy and possession [is] continuous, open and unmolested and recognized by the government". Prescinding from this premise, petitioners urge that the 25-year possession by petitioner Gordula from 1944 to 1969, albeit five (5) years short of the 30-year possession required under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, as amended, is enough to vest upon petitioner Gordula the "private rights" recognized and respected in Proclamation No. 573.
[18]

The case law does not support this submission. In Director of Lands v. Reyes, we held that a settler claiming the protection of "private rights" to exclude his land from a military or forest reservation must show "x x x by clear and convincing evidence that the property in question was acquired by [any] x x x means for the acquisition of public lands".
[19]

In fine, one claiming "private rights" must prove that he has complied with C. A. No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, which prescribes the substantive as well as the procedural requirements for acquisition of public lands. This law requires at least thirty (30) years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide

claim of acquisition, immediately preceding the filing of the application for free patent. The rationale for the 30-year period lies in the presumption that the land applied for pertains to the State, and that the occupants and/or possessors claim an interest therein only by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open and notorious possession.
[20]

Indeed, the possession of public agricultural land, however long the period may have extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor. The reason, to reiterate our ruling, is because the statute of limitations with regard to public agricultural land does not operate against the State, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State.
[21] [22]

In the case at bar, petitioners have failed to comply with the mandatory 30-year period of possession. Their 25-year possession of the land prior to its reservation as part of the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve cannot be considered compliance with C. A. No. 141, as amended. The Court has no authority to lower this requirement for it cannot amend the law. Next, petitioners contend that their "private rights" have been recognized by the government itself. They point to (1) the letter dated October 24, 1973 of then NAPOCOR General Manager, Ravanal Ravanzo, (2) the action of the Bureau of Lands which after investigation, declared him qualified to acquire the land; and (3) the Free Patent issued on January 17, 1974 by the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, by authority of the President of the Philippines. Petitioners urge that the findings and conclusions of the aforementioned government agencies and/or officers are conclusive and binding upon the courts, as held in the cases of Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion and Espinosa v. Makalintal.
[23] [24]

The submissions are unconvincing. In the first place, there is nothing in Espinosa v. Makalintal that is relevant to petitioners' claims. On the other hand, our ruling in Ortua v.Singson Encarnacion that "a decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to be reviewed by the courts," was made subject to the categorical caveat "in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition, or mistake".
[25] [26]

Undoubtedly, then General Manager Ravanzo erred in holding that petitioner Gordula "ha[d] sufficient ground to establish `priority rights' over the areas claimed". This error mothered the subsequent error of the Bureau of Lands which culminated in the erroneous grant of a free patent on January 17, 1974. The perpetration of these errors does not have the effect of converting a forest reserve into public alienable land. It is well-settled that forest land is incapable of registration, and its inclusion in a title nullifies that title. To be sure, the defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent does not lie against the state in an action for reversion of the land covered thereby when such land is a part of a public forest or of a forest reservation, the patent covering forest land being void ab initio. Nor can the mistake or error of its officials or agents in this regard be invoked against the
[27] [28]

government. Finally, the conversion of a forest reserve into public alienable land, requires no less than a categorical act of declassification by the President, upon the recommendation of the proper department head who has the authority to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands. There is none such in this case.
[29] [30]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is HEREBY DENIED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Martinez, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 137887. February 28, 2000]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. DAMIAN ERMITAO DE GUZMAN, DEOGRACIAS ERMITAO DE GUZMAN, ZENAIDA ERMITAO DE GUZMAN, ALICIA ERMITAO DE GUZMAN, SALVADOR ERMITAO DE GUZMAN, DOMINGA ERMITAON, NATIVIDAD ENCARNACION, MELBA E. TORRES, FLORA MANALO, SOCORRO DELA ROSA, JOSE ERMITAO, ESMERANDO ERMITAO, TRICOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and FILOMENO ERMITAO, respondents. francis DECISION
YNARES_SANTIAGO, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay, Branch 18, in LRC Cases No. TG-362 and TG-396.
[1] [2]

The facts are simple: Conflicting applications for confirmation of imperfect title were filed by Norma Almanzor and private respondent Salvador De Guzman over parcels of land located in Silang, Cavite. After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent De Guzman, to wit "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered by this Court as follows: nigel (1) In LRC Case No. TG-362, this Court hereby denies the application for registration of the parcels of land mentioned therein by applicant Norma R. Almanzor for lack of factual and legal bases; (2) In LRC Case No. 396, this Court hereby approves the petition for registration and thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 946 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Law, the land described in Plan Psu-67537-Amd-2 and containing an area of 308,638 square meters, as supported by its technical descriptions now forming parts of the records of these cases, in addition to other proofs adduced in the names of petitioners Damian Ermitao De Guzman, Deogracias Ermitao De Guzman, Zenaida Ermitao De Guzman, Alicia Ermitao De Guzman and Salvador De Guzman, all married, of legal age and with residence and postal addresses at Magallanes Street, Carmona, Cavite, subject to the claims of oppositors Dominga Ermitao, Natividad Encarnacion, Melba E. Torres, Flora Manalo, Socorro de la Rosa, Jose Ermitao and Esmeranso Ermitao under an instrument entitled 'Waiver of Rights with Conformity" the terms and conditions of which are hereby

ordered by this Court to be annotated at the back of the certificates of title to be issued to the petitioners pursuant to the judgment of this Court. brnado SO ORDERED."
[3]

As earlier mentioned, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, said judgment was affirmed and the petition for registration of private respondents over the subject parcels of land was approved. Hence, the instant Petition, anchored upon the following assignments of error
I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DE GUZMANS HAVE NOT SUBMITTED PROOF OF THEIR FEE SIMPLE TITLE OR POSSESSION IN THE MANNER AND FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED BY LAW TO JUSTIFY CONFIRMATION OF AN IMPERFECT TITLE. novero
II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE DE GUZMANS HAVE NOT OVERTHROWN THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LANDS ARE PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
[4]

We find merit in the instant Petition. It is not disputed that the subject parcels of land were released as agricultural land only in 1965 while the petition for confirmation of imperfect title was filed by private respondents only in 1991. Thus the period of occupancy of the subject parcels of land from 1965 until the time the application was filed in 1991 was only twenty six (26) years, four (4) years short of the required thirty (30) year period possession requirement under Sec. 14, P.D. 29 and R.A. No. 6940.
[5] [6]

In finding that private respondents' possession of the subject property complied with law, the Court of Appeals reasoned out that - nigel "(W)hile it is true that the land became alienable and disposable only in December, 1965, however, records indicate that as early as 1928, Pedro Ermitao, appellees' predecessor-in-interest, was already in possession of the property, cultivating it and planting various crops thereon. It follows that appellees' possession as of the time of the filing of the petition in 1991 when tacked to Pedro Ermitao's possession is 63 years or more than the required 30 years period of possession. The land, which is agricultural, has been converted to private property ."
[7]

We disagree. The Court of Appeals' consideration of the period of possession prior to the time the subject land was released as agricultural is in direct contravention of the pronouncement in Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, to wit [8]

"The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the private respondents had not qualified for a grant under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act because their possession of the land while it was still inalienable forest land, or before it was declared alienable and disposable land of the public domain on January 13, 1968, could not ripen into private ownership, and should be excluded from the computation of the 30-year open and continuous possession in concept of owner required under Section 48(b) of Com. Act 141. It accords with our ruling in Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, Ibarra Bishar, et al., 178 SCRA 708, that: marinella 'Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply (Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 701; Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 480; Vallarta vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 151 SCRA 679). 'Thus possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership (Vamo vs. Government, 41 Phil. 161 [1920]; Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 17 Phil. 410 [1960]). A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens System (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648; Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210 [1983]; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689 [1984])." (emphasis ours) So, too, is the Court of Appeals' reliance on the case of Director of Land Management vs. Court of Appeals misplaced. There, while the period of possession of the applicant's predecessor-in-interest was tacked to his own possession to comply with the required thirty year period possession requirement, the land involved therein was not forest land but alienable public land. On the other hand, in the case before us, the property subject of private respondents' application was only declared alienable in 1965. Prior to such date, the same was forest land incapable of private appropriation. It was not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, could not convert it into private property, (unless) and until such lands were reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. alonzo
[9] [10]

In summary, therefore, prior to its declaration as alienable land in 1965, any occupation or possession thereon cannot be considered in the counting of the thirty year possession requirement. This is in accord with the ruling in Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, (supra), and because the rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.
[11]

While we acknowledge the Court of Appeals' finding that private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject land for sixty three (63) years at the time of the application of their petition, our hands are tied by the applicable laws and jurisprudence in giving practical relief to them. The fact remains that from the time the subject land was declared alienable until the time of their application, private respondents' occupation thereof was only twenty six (26) years. We cannot consider their thirty seven (37) years of possession prior to the release of the land as alienable because absent the fact of declassification prior to the possession and cultivation in good faith by petitioner, the property occupied by him remained classified as forest or timberland, which he could not have acquired by prescription. Further, jurisprudence is replete with cases which reiterate that forest lands or forest reserves are not capable of private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private property. Possession of the land by private respondents, whether spanning decades or centuries, could never ripen into ownership. This Court is constrained to abide by the latin maxim "(d)ura lex, sed lex". iska
[12]

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED and the February 26, 1998 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48785 as well as that of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 38, in LRC Case No. TG-396 are both REVERSED. Judgment is rendered dismissing LRC Case No. 396 for failure of the applicants therein to comply with the thirty year occupancy and possessory requirements of law for confirmation of imperfect title. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur. micks

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC G.R. No. 133250 July 9, 2002

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. CARPIO, J.: This is an original Petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority ("PEA" for brevity) to disclose all facts on PEA's then on-going renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation ("AMARI" for brevity) to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such reclamation. The Facts On November 20, 1973, the government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways, signed a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines ("CDCP" for brevity) to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract also included the construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. CDCP obligated itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed land. On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, x x x lease and sell any and all kinds of lands." 1 On the same date, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay" 2 under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP). On December 29, 1981, then President Marcos issued a memorandum directing PEA to amend its contract with CDCP, so that "[A]ll future works in MCCRRP x x x shall be funded and owned by PEA." Accordingly, PEA and CDCP executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 29, 1981, which stated: "(i) CDCP shall undertake all reclamation, construction, and such other works in the MCCRRP as may be agreed upon by the parties, to be paid according to progress of works on a unit price/lump sum basis for items of work to be agreed upon, subject to price escalation, retention and other terms and conditions provided for in Presidential Decree No. 1594. All the financing required for such works shall be provided by PEA. xxx (iii) x x x CDCP shall give up all its development rights and hereby agrees to cede and transfer in favor of PEA, all of the rights, title, interest and participation of CDCP in and to all the areas of land reclaimed by CDCP in the MCCRRP as of December 30, 1981 which have not yet been sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of by CDCP as of said date, which areas consist of approximately Ninety-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three (99,473) square meters in the Financial Center Area covered by land pledge No. 5 and approximately

Three Million Three Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight (3,382,888) square meters of reclaimed areas at varying elevations above Mean Low Water Level located outside the Financial Center Area and the First Neighborhood Unit." 3 On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Paraaque City. The Freedom Islands have a total land area of One Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One (1,578,441) square meters or 157.841 hectares. On April 25, 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA" for brevity) with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands. The JVA also required the reclamation of an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding these islands to complete the configuration in the Master Development Plan of the Southern Reclamation Project-MCCRRP. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding. 4 On April 28, 1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA.5On June 8, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA. 6 On November 29, 1996, then Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the JVA as the "grandmother of all scams." As a result, the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, conducted a joint investigation. The Senate Committees reported the results of their investigation in Senate Committee Report No. 560 dated September 16, 1997.7 Among the conclusions of their report are: (1) the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain which the government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate these lands; (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal. On December 5, 1997, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 creating a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA in view of Senate Committee Report No. 560. The members of the Legal Task Force were the Secretary of Justice,8 the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel,9 and the Government Corporate Counsel. 10 The Legal Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions reached by the Senate Committees.11 On April 4 and 5, 1998, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that there were ongoing renegotiations between PEA and AMARI under an order issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos. According to these reports, PEA Director Nestor Kalaw, PEA Chairman Arsenio Yulo and retired Navy Officer Sergio Cruz composed the negotiating panel of PEA. On April 13, 1998, Antonio M. Zulueta filed before the Court a Petition for Prohibition with Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction docketed as G.R. No. 132994 seeking to nullify the JVA. The Court dismissed the petition "for unwarranted disregard of judicial hierarchy, without prejudice to the refiling of the case before the proper court." 12 On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez ("Petitioner" for brevity) as a taxpayer, filed the instant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends the government stands to lose billions of pesos in

the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations. Finally, petitioner asserts that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of public dominion. After several motions for extension of time, 13 PEA and AMARI filed their Comments on October 19, 1998 and June 25, 1998, respectively. Meanwhile, on December 28, 1998, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion: (a) to require PEA to submit the terms of the renegotiated PEA-AMARI contract; (b) for issuance of a temporary restraining order; and (c) to set the case for hearing on oral argument. Petitioner filed a Reiterative Motion for Issuance of a TRO dated May 26, 1999, which the Court denied in a Resolution dated June 22, 1999. In a Resolution dated March 23, 1999, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda. On March 30, 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement ("Amended JVA," for brevity). On May 28, 1999, the Office of the President under the administration of then President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended JVA. Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the President, petitioner now prays that on "constitutional and statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and void." 14 The Issues The issues raised by petitioner, PEA15 and AMARI16 are as follows: I. WHETHER THE PRINCIPAL RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION ARE MOOT AND ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS; II. WHETHER THE PETITION MERITS DISMISSAL FOR FAILING TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS; III. WHETHER THE PETITION MERITS DISMISSAL FOR NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; IV. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO BRING THIS SUIT; V. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION INCLUDES OFFICIAL INFORMATION ON ON-GOING NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE A FINAL AGREEMENT; VI. WHETHER THE STIPULATIONS IN THE AMENDED JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER TO AMARI OF CERTAIN LANDS, RECLAIMED AND STILL TO BE RECLAIMED, VIOLATE THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; AND VII. WHETHER THE COURT IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE AMENDED JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IS GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

The Court's Ruling First issue: whether the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of subsequent events. The petition prays that PEA publicly disclose the "terms and conditions of the on-going negotiations for a new agreement." The petition also prays that the Court enjoin PEA from "privately entering into, perfecting and/or executing any new agreement with AMARI." PEA and AMARI claim the petition is now moot and academic because AMARI furnished petitioner on June 21, 1999 a copy of the signed Amended JVA containing the terms and conditions agreed upon in the renegotiations. Thus, PEA has satisfied petitioner's prayer for a public disclosure of the renegotiations. Likewise, petitioner's prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA is now moot because PEA and AMARI have already signed the Amended JVA on March 30, 1999. Moreover, the Office of the President has approved the Amended JVA on May 28, 1999. Petitioner counters that PEA and AMARI cannot avoid the constitutional issue by simply fast-tracking the signing and approval of the Amended JVA before the Court could act on the issue. Presidential approval does not resolve the constitutional issue or remove it from the ambit of judicial review. We rule that the signing of the Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its approval by the President cannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction. PEA and AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA on constitutional grounds necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in the meantime PEA and AMARI have signed one in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner's principal basis in assailing the renegotiation of the JVA is its violation of Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from alienating lands of the public domain to private corporations. If the Amended JVA indeed violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to enjoin its implementation, and if already implemented, to annul the effects of such unconstitutional contract. The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial contract but one which seeks to transfer title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of Manila Bay to a single private corporation. It now becomes more compelling for the Court to resolve the issue to insure the government itself does not violate a provision of the Constitution intended to safeguard the national patrimony. Supervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution. In the instant case, if the Amended JVA runs counter to the Constitution, the Court can still prevent the transfer of title and ownership of alienable lands of the public domain in the name of AMARI. Even in cases where supervening events had made the cases moot, the Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and the public.17 Also, the instant petition is a case of first impression. All previous decisions of the Court involving Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, or its counterpart provision in the 1973 Constitution,18 covered agricultural landssold to private corporations which acquired the lands from private parties. The transferors of the private corporations claimed or could claim the right to judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles19 under Title II of Commonwealth Act. 141 ("CA No. 141" for brevity). In the instant case, AMARI seeks to acquire from PEA, a public corporation, reclaimed lands and submerged areas for non-agricultural purposes by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Title III of CA No. 141. Certain undertakings by AMARI under the Amended JVA constitute the consideration for the purchase. Neither AMARI nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of their titles because the lands covered by the Amended JVA are newly reclaimed or

still to be reclaimed. Judicial confirmation of imperfect title requires open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain for at least thirty years since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Besides, the deadline for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect title expired on December 31, 1987. 20 Lastly, there is a need to resolve immediately the constitutional issue raised in this petition because of the possible transfer at any time by PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to portions of the reclaimed lands. Under the Amended JVA, PEA is obligated to transfer to AMARI the latter's seventy percent proportionate share in the reclaimed areas as the reclamation progresses. The Amended JVA even allows AMARI to mortgage at any time the entirereclaimed area to raise financing for the reclamation project.21 Second issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle governing the hierarchy of courts. PEA and AMARI claim petitioner ignored the judicial hierarchy by seeking relief directly from the Court. The principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to cases involving factual questions. As it is not a trier of facts, the Court cannot entertain cases involving factual issues. The instant case, however, raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public. 22 The Court can resolve this case without determining any factual issue related to the case. Also, the instant case is a petition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. We resolve to exercise primary jurisdiction over the instant case. Third issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. PEA faults petitioner for seeking judicial intervention in compelling PEA to disclose publicly certain information without first asking PEA the needed information. PEA claims petitioner's direct resort to the Court violates the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. It also violates the rule that mandamus may issue only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. PEA distinguishes the instant case from Taada v. Tuvera23 where the Court granted the petition for mandamus even if the petitioners there did not initially demand from the Office of the President the publication of the presidential decrees. PEA points out that in Taada, the Executive Department had an affirmative statutory duty under Article 2 of the Civil Code24 and Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63825 to publish the presidential decrees. There was, therefore, no need for the petitioners in Taada to make an initial demand from the Office of the President. In the instant case, PEA claims it has no affirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly information about its renegotiation of the JVA. Thus, PEA asserts that the Court must apply the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies to the instant case in view of the failure of petitioner here to demand initially from PEA the needed information. The original JVA sought to dispose to AMARI public lands held by PEA, a government corporation. Under Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code, 26 the disposition of government lands to private parties requires public bidding. PEA was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The law obligated PEA to make this public disclosure even without demand from petitioner or from anyone. PEA failed to make this public disclosure because the original JVA, like the Amended JVA, was the result of a negotiated contract, not of a public bidding. Considering that PEA had an affirmative statutory duty to make the public disclosure, and was even in breach of this legal duty, petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial intervention.

Moreover, and this alone is determinative of this issue, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a purely legal or constitutional question. 27 The principal issue in the instant case is the capacity of AMARI to acquire lands held by PEA in view of the constitutional ban prohibiting the alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations. We rule that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply in the instant case. Fourth issue: whether petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit PEA argues that petitioner has no standing to institute mandamus proceedings to enforce his constitutional right to information without a showing that PEA refused to perform an affirmative duty imposed on PEA by the Constitution. PEA also claims that petitioner has not shown that he will suffer any concrete injury because of the signing or implementation of the Amended JVA. Thus, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved here. First is the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern. Second is the application of a constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens. The thrust of the first issue is to compel PEA to disclose publicly information on the sale of government lands worth billions of pesos, information which the Constitution and statutory law mandate PEA to disclose. The thrust of the second issue is to prevent PEA from alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain in violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a constitutional duty to the nation. Moreover, the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. In Chavez v. PCGG,28 the Court upheld the right of a citizen to bring a taxpayer's suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public, thus "Besides, petitioner emphasizes, the matter of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses is an issue of 'transcendental importance to the public.' He asserts that ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or orders of government agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of 'paramount public interest,' and if they 'immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the people.' Moreover, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, such as in this case. He invokes several decisions of this Court which have set aside the procedural matter of locus standi, when the subject of the case involved public interest. xxx In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing, the Court declared that the right they

sought to be enforced 'is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land.' Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, while reiterating Taada, further declared that 'when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and, therefore, part of the general 'public' which possesses the right.' Further, in Albano v. Reyes, we said that while expenditure of public funds may not have been involved under the questioned contract for the development, management and operation of the Manila International Container Terminal, 'public interest [was] definitely involved considering the important role [of the subject contract] . . . in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved.' We concluded that, as a consequence, the disclosure provision in the Constitution would constitute sufficient authority for upholding the petitioner's standing. Similarly, the instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records, documents and papers a right guaranteed under Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner, a former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen. Because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioner's legal standing, i.e. (1) the enforcement of a public right (2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, we rule that the petition at bar should be allowed." We rule that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources - matters of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi. Fifth issue: whether the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final agreement. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information on matters of public concern in this manner: "Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." (Emphasis supplied) The State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public interest reinforces the people's right to information on matters of public concern. This State policy is expressed in Section 28, Article II of the Constitution, thus: "Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest." (Emphasis supplied) These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. If the government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to

citizens, whatever citizens say, even if expressed without any restraint, will be speculative and amount to nothing. These twin provisions are also essential to hold public officials "at all times x x x accountable to the people,"29 for unless citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy. As explained by the Court inValmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.30 "An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people's will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit." PEA asserts, citing Chavez v. PCGG,31 that in cases of on-going negotiations the right to information is limited to "definite propositions of the government." PEA maintains the right does not include access to "intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the 'exploratory stage'." Also, AMARI contends that petitioner cannot invoke the right at the pre-decisional stage or before the closing of the transaction. To support its contention, AMARI cites the following discussion in the 1986 Constitutional Commission: "Mr. Suarez. And when we say 'transactions' which should be distinguished from contracts, agreements, or treaties or whatever, does the Gentleman refer to the steps leading to the consummation of the contract, or does he refer to the contract itself? Mr. Ople: The 'transactions' used here, I suppose is generic and therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a contract and already a consummated contract, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Suarez: This contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction. Mr. Ople: Yes, subject only to reasonable safeguards on the national interest. Mr. Suarez: Thank you."32 (Emphasis supplied) AMARI argues there must first be a consummated contract before petitioner can invoke the right. Requiring government officials to reveal their deliberations at the pre-decisional stage will degrade the quality of decision-making in government agencies. Government officials will hesitate to express their real sentiments during deliberations if there is immediate public dissemination of their discussions, putting them under all kinds of pressure before they decide. We must first distinguish between information the law on public bidding requires PEA to disclose publicly, and information the constitutional right to information requires PEA to release to the public. Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and without demand from anyone, disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its property. These include the size, location, technical description and nature of the property being disposed of, the terms and conditions

of the disposition, the parties qualified to bid, the minimum price and similar information. PEA must prepare all these data and disclose them to the public at the start of the disposition process, long before the consummation of the contract, because the Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to make this disclosure, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process. Information, however, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to information. While the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts, transactions, or decisions" on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government. From this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such definite proposition. In Chavez v. PCGG,33 the Court ruled as follows: "Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the "exploratory" stage. There is need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general, as discussed earlier such as on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information." (Emphasis supplied) Contrary to AMARI's contention, the commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that the right to information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects.
1wphi1.nt

Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract, which may be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern, a situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have intended. Such a requirement will prevent the citizenry from participating in the public discussion of any proposedcontract, effectively truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We can allow neither an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the State of its avowed "policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest." The right covers three categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely: (1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies. The first category refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government agencies or officials. The second category refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions of government agencies or officials. The third category refers to research data, whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in formulating government policies. The information that petitioner may access on the renegotiation of the JVA includes evaluation reports, recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference and other documents attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to the JVA. However, the right to information does not compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the

renegotiation of the JVA.34 The right only affords access to records, documents and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them. One who exercises the right must copy the records, documents and papers at his expense. The exercise of the right is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the public records and to minimize disruption to government operations, like rules specifying when and how to conduct the inspection and copying. 35 The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information under the separation of powers.36 The right does not also apply to information on military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national security, and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused, which courts have long recognized as confidential.37 The right may also be subject to other limitations that Congress may impose by law. There is no claim by PEA that the information demanded by petitioner is privileged information rooted in the separation of powers. The information does not cover Presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed-door Cabinet meetings which, like internal deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts, or executive sessions of either house of Congress,38 are recognized as confidential. This kind of information cannot be pried open by a coequal branch of government. A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential, Legislative and Judicial power. 39 This is not the situation in the instant case. We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes official information on ongoing negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.40 Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the right to information in several legislations.41 Sixth issue: whether stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution. The Regalian Doctrine The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all "lands, territories and possessions" in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.42 The King, as the sovereign ruler and representative of the people, acquired and owned all lands and territories in the Philippines except those he disposed of by grant or sale to private individuals. The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting, however, the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land ownership that "all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain." 43 Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian doctrine. Ownership and Disposition of Reclaimed Lands

The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 was the first statutory law governing the ownership and disposition of reclaimed lands in the Philippines. On May 18, 1907, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1654 which provided for the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. Later, on November 29, 1919, the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 2874, the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals . On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. CA No. 141 continues to this day as the general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 and the Civil Code of 1889 Under the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, the shores, bays, coves, inlets and all waters within the maritime zone of the Spanish territory belonged to the public domain for public use. 44 The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 allowed the reclamation of the sea under Article 5, which provided as follows: "Article 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." Under the Spanish Law of Waters, land reclaimed from the sea belonged to the party undertaking the reclamation, provided the government issued the necessary permit and did not reserve ownership of the reclaimed land to the State. Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889 defined property of public dominion as follows: "Art. 339. Property of public dominion is 1. That devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character; 2. That belonging exclusively to the State which, without being of general public use, is employed in some public service, or in the development of the national wealth, such as walls, fortresses, and other works for the defense of the territory, and mines, until granted to private individuals." Property devoted to public use referred to property open for use by the public. In contrast, property devoted to public service referred to property used for some specific public service and open only to those authorized to use the property. Property of public dominion referred not only to property devoted to public use, but also to property not so used but employed to develop the national wealth. This class of property constituted property of public dominion although employed for some economic or commercial activity to increase the national wealth. Article 341 of the Civil Code of 1889 governed the re-classification of property of public dominion into private property, to wit:

"Art. 341. Property of public dominion, when no longer devoted to public use or to the defense of the territory, shall become a part of the private property of the State." This provision, however, was not self-executing. The legislature, or the executive department pursuant to law, must declare the property no longer needed for public use or territorial defense before the government could lease or alienate the property to private parties. 45 Act No. 1654 of the Philippine Commission On May 8, 1907, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1654 which regulated the lease of reclaimed and foreshore lands. The salient provisions of this law were as follows: "Section 1. The control and disposition of the foreshore as defined in existing law, and the title to all Government or public lands made or reclaimed by the Government by dredging or filling or otherwise throughout the Philippine Islands, shall be retained by the Government without prejudice to vested rights and without prejudice to rights conceded to the City of Manila in the Luneta Extension. Section 2. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall cause all Government or public lands made or reclaimed by the Government by dredging or filling or otherwise to be divided into lots or blocks, with the necessary streets and alleyways located thereon, and shall cause plats and plans of such surveys to be prepared and filed with the Bureau of Lands. (b) Upon completion of such plats and plans the Governor-General shall give notice to the public that such parts of the lands so made or reclaimed as are not needed for public purposes will be leased for commercial and business purposes, x x x. xxx (e) The leases above provided for shall be disposed of to the highest and best bidder therefore, subject to such regulations and safeguards as the Governor-General may by executive order prescribe." (Emphasis supplied) Act No. 1654 mandated that the government should retain title to all lands reclaimed by the government. The Act also vested in the government control and disposition of foreshore lands. Private parties could lease lands reclaimed by the government only if these lands were no longer needed for public purpose. Act No. 1654 mandated public bidding in the lease of government reclaimed lands. Act No. 1654 made government reclaimed lands sui generis in that unlike other public lands which the government could sell to private parties, these reclaimed lands were available only for lease to private parties. Act No. 1654, however, did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Act No. 1654 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea under Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government permission remained private lands. Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature On November 29, 1919, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2874, the Public Land Act. 46 The salient provisions of Act No. 2874, on reclaimed lands, were as follows:

"Sec. 6. The Governor-General, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into (a) Alienable or disposable, (b) Timber, and (c) Mineral lands, x x x. Sec. 7. For the purposes of the government and disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act." Sec. 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited or classified x x x. xxx Sec. 55. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being neither timber nor mineral land, shall be classified as suitable for residential purposes or for commercial, industrial, or other productive purposes other than agricultural purposes, and shall be open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter, and not otherwise. Sec. 56. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other means; (b) Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers; (d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes. x x x. Sec. 58. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fifty-six shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under this chapter. The lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) Section 6 of Act No. 2874 authorized the Governor-General to "classify lands of the public domain into x x x alienable or disposable"47 lands. Section 7 of the Act empowered the Governor-General to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of the Act limited alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been "officially delimited and classified."

Section 56 of Act No. 2874 stated that lands "disposable under this title 48 shall be classified" as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands, as well as other lands. All these lands, however, must be suitable for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive nonagricultural purposes. These provisions vested upon the Governor-General the power to classify inalienable lands of the public domain into disposable lands of the public domain. These provisions also empowered the Governor-General to classify further such disposable lands of the public domain into government reclaimed, foreshore or marshy lands of the public domain, as well as other nonagricultural lands. Section 58 of Act No. 2874 categorically mandated that disposable lands of the public domain classified as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands "shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise." The Governor-General, before allowing the lease of these lands to private parties, must formally declare that the lands were "not necessary for the public service." Act No. 2874 reiterated the State policy to lease and not to sell government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, a policy first enunciated in 1907 in Act No. 1654. Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain that the government could not sell to private parties. The rationale behind this State policy is obvious. Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy public lands for non-agricultural purposes retain their inherent potential as areas for public service. This is the reason the government prohibited the sale, and only allowed the lease, of these lands to private parties. The State always reserved these lands for some future public service. Act No. 2874 did not authorize the reclassification of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 56 (d). Lands falling under Section 56 (d) were the only lands for non-agricultural purposes the government could sell to private parties. Thus, under Act No. 2874, the government could not sell government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands to private parties, unless the legislature passed a law allowing their sale .49 Act No. 2874 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea pursuant to Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government permission remained private lands. Dispositions under the 1935 Constitution On May 14, 1935, the 1935 Constitution took effect upon its ratification by the Filipino people. The 1935 Constitution, in adopting the Regalian doctrine, declared in Section 1, Article XIII, that "Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant." (Emphasis supplied)

The 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural lands, which were the only natural resources the State could alienate. Thus, foreshore lands, considered part of the State's natural resources, became inalienable by constitutional fiat, available only for lease for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. The government could alienate foreshore lands only after these lands were reclaimed and classified as alienable agricultural lands of the public domain. Government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain, being neither timber nor mineral lands, fell under the classification of public agricultural lands. 50 However, government reclaimed and marshy lands, although subject to classification as disposable public agricultural lands, could only be leased and not sold to private parties because of Act No. 2874. The prohibition on private parties from acquiring ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain was only a statutory prohibition and the legislature could therefore remove such prohibition. The 1935 Constitution did not prohibit individuals and corporations from acquiring government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain that were classified as agricultural lands under existing public land laws. Section 2, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution provided as follows: "Section 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease, or hold public agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty four hectares, nor may any individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty hectares, or by lease in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares , or by homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. Lands adapted to grazing, not exceeding two thousand hectares, may be leased to an individual, private corporation, or association." (Emphasis supplied) Still, after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, the legislature did not repeal Section 58 of Act No. 2874 to open for sale to private parties government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain. On the contrary, the legislature continued the long established State policy of retaining for the government title and ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain. Commonwealth Act No. 141 of the Philippine National Assembly On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly approved Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, which compiled the then existing laws on lands of the public domain. CA No. 141, as amended, remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands. 51 Section 6 of CA No. 141 empowers the President to classify lands of the public domain into "alienable or disposable"52 lands of the public domain, which prior to such classification are inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Section 7 of CA No. 141 authorizes the President to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of CA No. 141 states that the government can declare open for disposition or concession only lands that are "officially delimited and classified." Sections 6, 7 and 8 of CA No. 141 read as follows: "Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into (a) Alienable or disposable, (b) Timber, and

(c) Mineral lands, and may at any time and in like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, 53 for the purpose of their administration and disposition. Sec. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act. Sec. 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so. x x x." Thus, before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of the public domain, the President must first officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable, and then declare them open to disposition or concession. There must be no law reserving these lands for public or quasi-public uses. The salient provisions of CA No. 141, on government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, are as follows: "Sec. 58. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being neither timber nor mineral land, is intended to be used for residential purposes or for commercial, industrial, or other productive purposes other than agricultural, and is open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise. Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other means; (b) Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers; (d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes. Sec. 60. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold, as the case may be, to any person, corporation, or association authorized to purchase or lease public lands for agricultural purposes. x x x. Sec. 61. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fifty-nine shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under this

chapter. The lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) Section 61 of CA No. 141 readopted, after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, Section 58 of Act No. 2874 prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain. All these lands are intended for residential, commercial, industrial or other nonagricultural purposes. As before, Section 61 allowed only the lease of such lands to private parties. The government could sell to private parties only lands falling under Section 59 (d) of CA No. 141, or those lands for non-agricultural purposes not classified as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain. Foreshore lands, however, became inalienable under the 1935 Constitution which only allowed the lease of these lands to qualified private parties. Section 58 of CA No. 141 expressly states that disposable lands of the public domain intended for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive purposes other than agricultural " shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise." Under Section 10 of CA No. 141, the term "disposition" includes lease of the land. Any disposition of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes must comply with Chapter IX, Title III of CA No. 141,54 unless a subsequent law amended or repealed these provisions. In his concurring opinion in the landmark case of Republic Real Estate Corporation v. Court of Appeals,55Justice Reynato S. Puno summarized succinctly the law on this matter, as follows: "Foreshore lands are lands of public dominion intended for public use. So too are lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means. Act 1654 mandated that the control and disposition of the foreshore and lands under water remained in the national government. Said law allowed only the 'leasing' of reclaimed land. The Public Land Acts of 1919 and 1936 also declared that the foreshore and lands reclaimed by the government were to be "disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise." Before leasing, however, the Governor-General, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, had first to determine that the land reclaimed was not necessary for the public service. This requisite must have been met before the land could be disposed of. But even then, the foreshore and lands under water were not to be alienated and sold to private parties. The disposition of the reclaimed land was only by lease. The land remained property of the State." (Emphasis supplied) As observed by Justice Puno in his concurring opinion, "Commonwealth Act No. 141 has remained in effect at present." The State policy prohibiting the sale to private parties of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain, first implemented in 1907 was thus reaffirmed in CA No. 141 after the 1935 Constitution took effect. The prohibition on the sale of foreshore lands, however, became a constitutional edict under the 1935 Constitution. Foreshore lands became inalienable as natural resources of the State, unless reclaimed by the government and classified as agricultural lands of the public domain, in which case they would fall under the classification of government reclaimed lands. After the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain continued to be only leased and not sold to private parties. 56 These lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain the government could not sell to private parties.

Since then and until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale. CA No. 141 does not authorize the President to reclassify government reclaimed and marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 59 (d). Lands classified under Section 59 (d) are the only alienable or disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes that the government could sell to private parties. Moreover, Section 60 of CA No. 141 expressly requires congressional authority before lands under Section 59 that the government previously transferred to government units or entities could be sold to private parties. Section 60 of CA No. 141 declares that "Sec. 60. x x x The area so leased or sold shall be such as shall, in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, be reasonably necessary for the purposes for which such sale or lease is requested, and shall not exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares: Provided, however, That this limitation shall not apply to grants, donations, or transfers made to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government for the purposes deemed by said entities conducive to the public interest; but the land so granted, donated, or transferred to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress: x x x." (Emphasis supplied) The congressional authority required in Section 60 of CA No. 141 mirrors the legislative authority required in Section 56 of Act No. 2874. One reason for the congressional authority is that Section 60 of CA No. 141 exempted government units and entities from the maximum area of public lands that could be acquired from the State. These government units and entities should not just turn around and sell these lands to private parties in violation of constitutional or statutory limitations. Otherwise, the transfer of lands for nonagricultural purposes to government units and entities could be used to circumvent constitutional limitations on ownership of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. In the same manner, such transfers could also be used to evade the statutory prohibition in CA No. 141 on the sale of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain to private parties. Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes by operation of law a lien on these lands. 57 In case of sale or lease of disposable lands of the public domain falling under Section 59 of CA No. 141, Sections 63 and 67 require a public bidding. Sections 63 and 67 of CA No. 141 provide as follows: "Sec. 63. Whenever it is decided that lands covered by this chapter are not needed for public purposes, the Director of Lands shall ask the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (now the Secretary of Natural Resources) for authority to dispose of the same. Upon receipt of such authority, the Director of Lands shall give notice by public advertisement in the same manner as in the case of leases or sales of agricultural public land, x x x. Sec. 67. The lease or sale shall be made by oral bidding; and adjudication shall be made to the highest bidder. x x x." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, CA No. 141 mandates the Government to put to public auction all leases or sales of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. 58

Like Act No. 1654 and Act No. 2874 before it, CA No. 141 did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Private parties could still reclaim portions of the sea with government permission. However, the reclaimed land could become private land only if classified as alienable agricultural land of the public domain open to disposition under CA No. 141. The 1935 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural lands. The Civil Code of 1950 The Civil Code of 1950 readopted substantially the definition of property of public dominion found in the Civil Code of 1889. Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code of 1950 state that "Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. x x x. Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." Again, the government must formally declare that the property of public dominion is no longer needed for public use or public service, before the same could be classified as patrimonial property of the State.59 In the case of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain, the declaration of their being disposable, as well as the manner of their disposition, is governed by the applicable provisions of CA No. 141. Like the Civil Code of 1889, the Civil Code of 1950 included as property of public dominion those properties of the State which, without being for public use, are intended for public service or the "development of the national wealth." Thus, government reclaimed and marshy lands of the State, even if not employed for public use or public service, if developed to enhance the national wealth, are classified as property of public dominion. Dispositions under the 1973 Constitution The 1973 Constitution, which took effect on January 17, 1973, likewise adopted the Regalian doctrine. Section 8, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution stated that "Sec. 8. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant." (Emphasis supplied)

The 1973 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources with the exception of "agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain." In contrast, the 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except "public agricultural lands." However, the term "public agricultural lands" in the 1935 Constitution encompassed industrial, commercial, residential and resettlement lands of the public domain. 60 If the land of public domain were neither timber nor mineral land, it would fall under the classification of agricultural land of the public domain. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, therefore, prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except agricultural lands of the public domain. The 1973 Constitution, however, limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Private corporations, even if wholly owned by Philippine citizens, were no longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain unlike in the 1935 Constitution. Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution declared that "Sec. 11. The Batasang Pambansa, taking into account conservation, ecological, and development requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of land of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to, any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor. No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area nor may any citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire by purchase, homestead or grant, in excess of twenty-four hectares. No private corporation or association may hold by lease, concession, license or permit, timber or forest lands and other timber or forest resources in excess of one hundred thousand hectares. However, such area may be increased by the Batasang Pambansa upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, under the 1973 Constitution, private corporations could hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. Only individuals could now acquire alienable lands of the public domain, and private corporations became absolutely barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. The constitutional ban extended to all kinds of alienable lands of the public domain, while the statutory ban under CA No. 141 applied only to government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1084 Creating the Public Estates Authority On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA, a wholly government owned and controlled corporation with a special charter. Sections 4 and 8 of PD No. 1084, vests PEA with the following purposes and powers: "Sec. 4. Purpose. The Authority is hereby created for the following purposes: (a) To reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas, by dredging, filling or other means, or to acquire reclaimed land; (b) To develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands, buildings, estates and other forms of real property, owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government; (c) To provide for, operate or administer such service as may be necessary for the efficient, economical and beneficial utilization of the above properties.

Sec. 5. Powers and functions of the Authority. The Authority shall, in carrying out the purposes for which it is created, have the following powers and functions: (a)To prescribe its by-laws. xxx (i) To hold lands of the public domain in excess of the area permitted to private corporations by statute. (j) To reclaim lands and to construct work across, or otherwise, any stream, watercourse, canal, ditch, flume x x x. xxx (o) To perform such acts and exercise such functions as may be necessary for the attainment of the purposes and objectives herein specified." (Emphasis supplied) PD No. 1084 authorizes PEA to reclaim both foreshore and submerged areas of the public domain. Foreshore areas are those covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide. 61 Submerged areas are those permanently under water regardless of the ebb and flow of the tide. 62 Foreshore and submerged areas indisputably belong to the public domain 63 and are inalienable unless reclaimed, classified as alienable lands open to disposition, and further declared no longer needed for public service. The ban in the 1973 Constitution on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain did not apply to PEA since it was then, and until today, a fully owned government corporation. The constitutional ban applied then, as it still applies now, only to "private corporations and associations." PD No. 1084 expressly empowers PEA "to hold lands of the public domain" even "in excess of the area permitted to private corporations by statute." Thus, PEA can hold title to private lands, as well as title to lands of the public domain. In order for PEA to sell its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain, there must be legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these lands. This legislative authority is necessary in view of Section 60 of CA No.141, which states "Sec. 60. x x x; but the land so granted, donated or transferred to a province, municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress; x x x." (Emphasis supplied) Without such legislative authority, PEA could not sell but only lease its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Nevertheless, any legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain would be subject to the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. Hence, such legislative authority could only benefit private individuals. Dispositions under the 1987 Constitution The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions before it, has adopted the Regalian doctrine. The 1987 Constitution declares that all natural resources are " owned by the State," and

except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be alienated. Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution state that "Section 2. 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. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. x x x. Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. 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, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant. 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." (Emphasis supplied) The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning private corporations fromacquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Like the 1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law governing the lease to private corporations of reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain is still CA No. 141. The Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban The rationale behind the constitutional ban on corporations from acquiring, except through lease, alienable lands of the public domain is not well understood. During the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the commissioners probed the rationale behind this ban, thus: "FR. BERNAS: Mr. Vice-President, my questions have reference to page 3, line 5 which says: `No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.' If we recall, this provision did not exist under the 1935 Constitution, but this was introduced in the 1973 Constitution. In effect, it prohibits private corporations from acquiring alienable public lands. But it has not been very clear in jurisprudence what the reason for this is . In some of the cases decided in 1982 and 1983, it was indicated that the purpose of this is to prevent large landholdings. Is that the intent of this provision? MR. VILLEGAS: I think that is the spirit of the provision.

FR. BERNAS: In existing decisions involving the Iglesia ni Cristo, there were instances where the Iglesia ni Cristo was not allowed to acquire a mere 313-square meter land where a chapel stood because the Supreme Court said it would be in violation of this." (Emphasis supplied) In Ayog v. Cusi,64 the Court explained the rationale behind this constitutional ban in this way: "Indeed, one purpose of the constitutional prohibition against purchases of public agricultural lands by private corporations is to equitably diffuse land ownership or to encourage 'ownercultivatorship and the economic family-size farm' and to prevent a recurrence of cases like the instant case. Huge landholdings by corporations or private persons had spawned social unrest." However, if the constitutional intent is to prevent huge landholdings, the Constitution could have simply limited the size of alienable lands of the public domain that corporations could acquire. The Constitution could have followed the limitations on individuals, who could acquire not more than 24 hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the 1973 Constitution, and not more than 12 hectares under the 1987 Constitution. If the constitutional intent is to encourage economic family-size farms, placing the land in the name of a corporation would be more effective in preventing the break-up of farmlands. If the farmland is registered in the name of a corporation, upon the death of the owner, his heirs would inherit shares in the corporation instead of subdivided parcels of the farmland. This would prevent the continuing break-up of farmlands into smaller and smaller plots from one generation to the next. In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional intent is safeguarded by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional intent is removed. The available alienable public lands are gradually decreasing in the face of an ever-growing population. The most effective way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would seem, is the practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban. The Amended Joint Venture Agreement The subject matter of the Amended JVA, as stated in its second Whereas clause, consists of three properties, namely: 1. "[T]hree partially reclaimed and substantially eroded islands along Emilio Aguinaldo Boulevard in Paranaque and Las Pinas, Metro Manila, with a combined titled area of 1,578,441 square meters;"

2. "[A]nother area of 2,421,559 square meters contiguous to the three islands;" and 3. "[A]t AMARI's option as approved by PEA, an additional 350 hectares more or less to regularize the configuration of the reclaimed area." 65 PEA confirms that the Amended JVA involves "the development of the Freedom Islands and further reclamation of about 250 hectares x x x," plus an option "granted to AMARI to subsequently reclaim another 350 hectares x x x."66 In short, the Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares of the 750-hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the 592.15 hectares are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay. Under the Amended JVA, AMARI will reimburse PEA the sum of P1,894,129,200.00 for PEA's "actual cost" in partially reclaiming the Freedom Islands. AMARI will also complete, at its own expense, the reclamation of the Freedom Islands. AMARI will further shoulder all the reclamation costs of all the other areas, totaling 592.15 hectares, still to be reclaimed. AMARI and PEA will share, in the proportion of 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively, the total net usable area which is defined in the Amended JVA as the total reclaimed area less 30 percent earmarked for common areas. Title to AMARI's share in the net usable area, totaling 367.5 hectares, will be issued in the name of AMARI. Section 5.2 (c) of the Amended JVA provides that "x x x, PEA shall have the duty to execute without delay the necessary deed of transfer or conveyance of the title pertaining to AMARI's Land share based on the Land Allocation Plan. PEA, when requested in writing by AMARI, shall then cause the issuance and delivery of the proper certificates of title covering AMARI's Land Share in the name of AMARI, x x x; provided, that if more than seventy percent (70%) of the titled area at any given time pertains to AMARI, PEA shall deliver to AMARI only seventy percent (70%) of the titles pertaining to AMARI, until such time when a corresponding proportionate area of additional land pertaining to PEA has been titled." (Emphasis supplied) Indisputably, under the Amended JVA AMARI will acquire and own a maximum of 367.5 hectares of reclaimed land which will be titled in its name. To implement the Amended JVA, PEA delegated to the unincorporated PEA-AMARI joint venture PEA's statutory authority, rights and privileges to reclaim foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay. Section 3.2.a of the Amended JVA states that "PEA hereby contributes to the joint venture its rights and privileges to perform Rawland Reclamation and Horizontal Development as well as own the Reclamation Area, thereby granting the Joint Venture the full and exclusive right, authority and privilege to undertake the Project in accordance with the Master Development Plan." The Amended JVA is the product of a renegotiation of the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 and its supplemental agreement dated August 9, 1995. The Threshold Issue The threshold issue is whether AMARI, a private corporation, can acquire and own under the Amended JVA 367.5 hectares of reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay in view of Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which state that:

"Section 2. 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. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. x x x. xxx Section 3. x x x 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, x x x."(Emphasis supplied) Classification of Reclaimed Foreshore and Submerged Areas PEA readily concedes that lands reclaimed from foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay are alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. In its Memorandum, 67 PEA admits that "Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain: 'Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a) Lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means; x x x.'" (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, the Legal Task Force68 constituted under Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 admitted in its Report and Recommendation to then President Fidel V. Ramos, "[R]eclaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain ."69 The Legal Task Force concluded that "D. Conclusion Reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain. However, by statutory authority, the rights of ownership and disposition over reclaimed lands have been transferred to PEA, by virtue of which PEA, as owner, may validly convey the same to any qualified person without violating the Constitution or any statute. The constitutional provision prohibiting private corporations from holding public land, except by lease (Sec. 3, Art. XVII,70 1987 Constitution), does not apply to reclaimed lands whose ownership has passed on to PEA by statutory grant." Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the "lands of the public domain, waters x x x and other natural resources" and consequently "owned by the State." As such, foreshore and submerged areas "shall not be alienated," unless they are classified as "agricultural lands" of the public domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by PEA does not convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession. Moreover, these reclaimed lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public use. 71

Section 8 of CA No. 141 provides that "only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and classified."72 The President has the authority to classify inalienable lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, pursuant to Section 6 of CA No. 141. In Laurel vs. Garcia,73 the Executive Department attempted to sell the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan, which was acquired by the Philippine Government for use as the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. Although the Chancery had transferred to another location thirteen years earlier, the Court still ruled that, under Article 422 74of the Civil Code, a property of public dominion retains such character until formally declared otherwise. The Court ruled that "The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]. A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership 'until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such' (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]." (Emphasis supplied) PD No. 1085, issued on February 4, 1977, authorized the issuance of special land patents for lands reclaimed by PEA from the foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay. On January 19, 1988 then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 in the name of PEA for the 157.84 hectares comprising the partially reclaimed Freedom Islands. Subsequently, on April 9, 1999 the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paranaque issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311 and 7312 in the name of PEA pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529 authorizing the issuance of certificates of title corresponding to land patents. To this day, these certificates of title are still in the name of PEA. PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquino's actual issuance of a special patent covering the Freedom Islands, is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying the Freedom Islands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1085 and President Aquino's issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. The Freedom Islands are thus alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition or concession to qualified parties. At the time then President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, PEA had already reclaimed the Freedom Islands although subsequently there were partial erosions on some areas. The government had also completed the necessary surveys on these islands. Thus, the Freedom Islands were no longer part of Manila Bay but part of the land mass. Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into "agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks." Being neither timber, mineral, nor national park lands, the reclaimed Freedom Islands necessarily fall under the classification of agricultural lands of the public domain. Under the 1987 Constitution, agricultural lands of the public domain are the only natural resources that the State may alienate to qualified private parties. All other natural resources, such as the seas or bays, are "waters x x x owned by the State" forming part of the public domain, and are inalienable pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. AMARI claims that the Freedom Islands are private lands because CDCP, then a private corporation, reclaimed the islands under a contract dated November 20, 1973 with the Commissioner of Public Highways. AMARI, citing Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, argues that "if the ownership of reclaimed lands may be given to the party constructing the works, then it cannot be said that reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain which the State may not alienate."75 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters reads as follows:

"Article 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." (Emphasis supplied) Under Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, private parties could reclaim from the sea only with "proper permission" from the State. Private parties could own the reclaimed land only if not "otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." This clearly meant that no one could reclaim from the sea without permission from the State because the sea is property of public dominion. It also meant that the State could grant or withhold ownership of the reclaimed land because any reclaimed land, like the sea from which it emerged, belonged to the State. Thus, a private person reclaiming from the sea without permission from the State could not acquire ownership of the reclaimed land which would remain property of public dominion like the sea it replaced.76 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 adopted the time-honored principle of land ownership that "all lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."77 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters must be read together with laws subsequently enacted on the disposition of public lands. In particular, CA No. 141 requires that lands of the public domain must first be classified as alienable or disposable before the government can alienate them. These lands must not be reserved for public or quasi-public purposes. 78 Moreover, the contract between CDCP and the government was executed after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution which barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. This contract could not have converted the Freedom Islands into private lands of a private corporation. Presidential Decree No. 3-A, issued on January 11, 1973, revoked all laws authorizing the reclamation of areas under water and revested solely in the National Government the power to reclaim lands. Section 1 of PD No. 3-A declared that "The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the reclamation of areas under water, whether foreshore or inland, shall be limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under a proper contract . (Emphasis supplied) x x x." PD No. 3-A repealed Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 because reclamation of areas under water could now be undertaken only by the National Government or by a person contracted by the National Government. Private parties may reclaim from the sea only under a contract with the National Government, and no longer by grant or permission as provided in Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Executive Order No. 525, issued on February 14, 1979, designated PEA as the National Government's implementing arm to undertake "all reclamation projects of the government," which "shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity." Under such contract, a private party receives compensation for reclamation services rendered to PEA. Payment to the contractor may be in cash, or in kind consisting of portions of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. The reclaimed land can be used as payment in kind only if the reclaimed land is first classified as alienable or disposable land open to disposition, and then declared no longer needed for public service.

The Amended JVA covers not only the Freedom Islands, but also an additional 592.15 hectares which are still submerged and forming part of Manila Bay. There is no legislative or Presidential act classifying these submerged areas as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. These submerged areas are not covered by any patent or certificate of title. There can be no dispute that these submerged areas form part of the public domain, and in their present state are inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Until reclaimed from the sea, these submerged areas are, under the Constitution, "waters x x x owned by the State," forming part of the public domain and consequently inalienable. Only when actually reclaimed from the sea can these submerged areas be classified as public agricultural lands, which under the Constitution are the only natural resources that the State may alienate. Once reclaimed and transformed into public agricultural lands, the government may then officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition. Thereafter, the government may declare these lands no longer needed for public service. Only then can these reclaimed lands be considered alienable or disposable lands of the public domain and within the commerce of man. The classification of PEA's reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands into alienable or disposable lands open to disposition is necessary because PEA is tasked under its charter to undertake public services that require the use of lands of the public domain. Under Section 5 of PD No. 1084, the functions of PEA include the following: "[T]o own or operate railroads, tramways and other kinds of land transportation, x x x; [T]o construct, maintain and operate such systems of sanitary sewers as may be necessary; [T]o construct, maintain and operate such storm drains as may be necessary." PEA is empowered to issue "rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper use by private parties of any or all of the highways, roads, utilities, buildings and/or any of its properties and to impose or collect fees or tolls for their use." Thus, part of the reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands held by the PEA would actually be needed for public use or service since many of the functions imposed on PEA by its charter constitute essential public services. Moreover, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 525 provides that PEA "shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government." The same section also states that "[A]ll reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; x x x." Thus, under EO No. 525, in relation to PD No. 3-A and PD No.1084, PEA became the primary implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of the public domain. EO No. 525 recognized PEA as the government entity "to undertake the reclamation of lands and ensure their maximum utilization in promoting public welfare and interests."79 Since large portions of these reclaimed lands would obviously be needed for public service, there must be a formal declaration segregating reclaimed lands no longer needed for public service from those still needed for public service.
1wphi1.nt

Section 3 of EO No. 525, by declaring that all lands reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be owned by the PEA," could not automatically operate to classify inalienable lands into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Otherwise, reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands of the public domain would automatically become alienable once reclaimed by PEA, whether or not classified as alienable or disposable. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987, a later law than either PD No. 1084 or EO No. 525, vests in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR" for brevity) the following powers and functions: "Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The Department shall:

(1) x x x xxx (4) Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable public lands, mineral resources and, in the process of exercising such control, impose appropriate taxes, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect such revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources; xxx (14) Promulgate rules, regulations and guidelines on the issuance of licenses, permits, concessions, lease agreements and such other privileges concerning the development, exploration and utilization of the country's marine, freshwater, and brackish water and over all aquatic resources of the country and shall continue to oversee, supervise and police our natural resources ; cancel or cause to cancel such privileges upon failure, non-compliance or violations of any regulation, order, and for all other causes which are in furtherance of the conservation of natural resources and supportive of the national interest; (15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for classification, subclassification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with appropriate agencies."80 (Emphasis supplied) As manager, conservator and overseer of the natural resources of the State, DENR exercises "supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands." DENR also exercises "exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain." Thus, DENR decides whether areas under water, like foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay, should be reclaimed or not. This means that PEA needs authorization from DENR before PEA can undertake reclamation projects in Manila Bay, or in any part of the country. DENR also exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of all lands of the public domain. Hence, DENR decides whether reclaimed lands of PEA should be classified as alienable under Sections 681 and 782 of CA No. 141. Once DENR decides that the reclaimed lands should be so classified, it then recommends to the President the issuance of a proclamation classifying the lands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. We note that then DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. countersigned Special Patent No. 3517 in compliance with the Revised Administrative Code and Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141. In short, DENR is vested with the power to authorize the reclamation of areas under water, while PEA is vested with the power to undertake the physical reclamation of areas under water, whether directly or through private contractors. DENR is also empowered to classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands subject to the approval of the President. On the other hand, PEA is tasked to develop, sell or lease the reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain. Clearly, the mere physical act of reclamation by PEA of foreshore or submerged areas does not make the reclaimed lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA. Likewise, the mere transfer by the National Government of lands of the public domain to PEA does not make the lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA.

Absent two official acts a classification that these lands are alienable or disposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not needed for public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands of the public domain. Only such an official classification and formal declaration can convert reclaimed lands into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition under the Constitution, Title I and Title III 83of CA No. 141 and other applicable laws.84 PEA's Authority to Sell Reclaimed Lands PEA, like the Legal Task Force, argues that as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, the reclaimed lands shall be disposed of in accordance with CA No. 141, the Public Land Act. PEA, citing Section 60 of CA No. 141, admits that reclaimed lands transferred to a branch or subdivision of the government "shall not be alienated, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress: x x x."85 (Emphasis by PEA) In Laurel vs. Garcia,86 the Court cited Section 48 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which states that "Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: x x x." Thus, the Court concluded that a law is needed to convey any real property belonging to the Government. The Court declared that "It is not for the President to convey real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence." (Emphasis supplied) PEA contends that PD No. 1085 and EO No. 525 constitute the legislative authority allowing PEA to sell its reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085, issued on February 4, 1977, provides that "The land reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore area of Manila Bay pursuant to the contract for the reclamation and construction of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Project between the Republic of the Philippines and the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines dated November 20, 1973 and/or any other contract or reclamation covering the same area is hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Public Estates Authority established pursuant to PD No. 1084; Provided, however, That the rights and interests of the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines pursuant to the aforesaid contract shall be recognized and respected. Henceforth, the Public Estates Authority shall exercise the rights and assume the obligations of the Republic of the Philippines (Department of Public Highways) arising from, or incident to, the aforesaid contract between the Republic of the Philippines and the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines. In consideration of the foregoing transfer and assignment, the Public Estates Authority shall issue in favor of the Republic of the Philippines the corresponding shares of stock in said entity with an issued value of said shares of stock (which) shall be deemed fully paid and non-assessable.

The Secretary of Public Highways and the General Manager of the Public Estates Authority shall execute such contracts or agreements, including appropriate agreements with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, as may be necessary to implement the above. Special land patent/patents shall be issued by the Secretary of Natural Resources in favor of the Public Estates Authority without prejudice to the subsequent transfer to the contractor or his assignees of such portion or portions of the land reclaimed or to be reclaimed as provided for in the above-mentioned contract. On the basis of such patents, the Land Registration Commission shall issue the corresponding certificate of title." (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, Section 3 of EO No. 525, issued on February 14, 1979, provides that "Sec. 3. All lands reclaimed by PEA shall belong to or be owned by the PEA which shall be responsible for its administration, development, utilization or disposition in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084. Any and all income that the PEA may derive from the sale, lease or use of reclaimed lands shall be used in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084." There is no express authority under either PD No. 1085 or EO No. 525 for PEA to sell its reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085 merely transferred "ownership and administration" of lands reclaimed from Manila Bay to PEA, while EO No. 525 declared that lands reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be owned by PEA." EO No. 525 expressly states that PEA should dispose of its reclaimed lands "in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084," the charter of PEA. PEA's charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands x x x owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government."87 (Emphasis supplied) There is, therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands, whether patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to private parties its patrimonial properties in accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the sale of PEA's patrimonial lands. PEA may also sell its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private individuals since, with the legislative authority, there is no longer any statutory prohibition against such sales and the constitutional ban does not apply to individuals. PEA, however, cannot sell any of its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private corporations since Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits such sales. The legislative authority benefits only individuals. Private corporations remain barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, including government reclaimed lands. The provision in PD No. 1085 stating that portions of the reclaimed lands could be transferred by PEA to the "contractor or his assignees" (Emphasis supplied) would not apply to private corporations but only to individuals because of the constitutional ban. Otherwise, the provisions of PD No. 1085 would violate both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. The requirement of public auction in the sale of reclaimed lands Assuming the reclaimed lands of PEA are classified as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition, and further declared no longer needed for public service, PEA would have to conduct a public bidding in selling or leasing these lands. PEA must observe the provisions of Sections 63 and

67 of CA No. 141 requiring public auction, in the absence of a law exempting PEA from holding a public auction.88 Special Patent No. 3517 expressly states that the patent is issued by authority of the Constitution and PD No. 1084, "supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended." This is an acknowledgment that the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the disposition of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain unless otherwise provided by law. Executive Order No. 654, 89 which authorizes PEA "to determine the kind and manner of payment for the transfer" of its assets and properties, does not exempt PEA from the requirement of public auction. EO No. 654 merely authorizes PEA to decide the mode of payment, whether in kind and in installment, but does not authorize PEA to dispense with public auction. Moreover, under Section 79 of PD No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code, the government is required to sell valuable government property through public bidding. Section 79 of PD No. 1445 mandates that "Section 79. When government property has become unserviceable for any cause, or is no longer needed, it shall, upon application of the officer accountable therefor, be inspected by the head of the agency or his duly authorized representative in the presence of the auditor concerned and, if found to be valueless or unsaleable, it may be destroyed in their presence. If found to be valuable, it may be sold at public auction to the highest bidder under the supervision of the proper committee on award or similar body in the presence of the auditor concerned or other authorized representative of the Commission, after advertising by printed notice in the Official Gazette, or for not less than three consecutive days in any newspaper of general circulation , or where the value of the property does not warrant the expense of publication, by notices posted for a like period in at least three public places in the locality where the property is to be sold. In the event that the public auction fails, the property may be sold at a private sale at such price as may be fixed by the same committee or body concerned and approved by the Commission." It is only when the public auction fails that a negotiated sale is allowed, in which case the Commission on Audit must approve the selling price.90 The Commission on Audit implements Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code through Circular No. 89-296 91 dated January 27, 1989. This circular emphasizes that government assets must be disposed of only through public auction, and a negotiated sale can be resorted to only in case of "failure of public auction." At the public auction sale, only Philippine citizens are qualified to bid for PEA's reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Private corporations are barred from bidding at the auction sale of any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA originally scheduled a public bidding for the Freedom Islands on December 10, 1991. PEA imposed a condition that the winning bidder should reclaim another 250 hectares of submerged areas to regularize the shape of the Freedom Islands, under a 60-40 sharing of the additional reclaimed areas in favor of the winning bidder. 92No one, however, submitted a bid. On December 23, 1994, the Government Corporate Counsel advised PEA it could sell the Freedom Islands through negotiation, without need of another public bidding, because of the failure of the public bidding on December 10, 1991.93 However, the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 covered not only the Freedom Islands and the additional 250 hectares still to be reclaimed, it also granted an option to AMARI to reclaim another 350 hectares. The original JVA, a negotiated contract, enlarged the reclamation area to 750 hectares.94 The failure of public bidding on December 10, 1991, involving only 407.84 hectares, 95 is not a valid justification for a negotiated sale of 750 hectares, almost double the area publicly

auctioned. Besides, the failure of public bidding happened on December 10, 1991, more than three years before the signing of the original JVA on April 25, 1995. The economic situation in the country had greatly improved during the intervening period. Reclamation under the BOT Law and the Local Government Code The constitutional prohibition in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is absolute and clear: "Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, x x x." Even Republic Act No. 6957 ("BOT Law," for brevity), cited by PEA and AMARI as legislative authority to sell reclaimed lands to private parties, recognizes the constitutional ban. Section 6 of RA No. 6957 states "Sec. 6. Repayment Scheme. - For the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of any infrastructure projects undertaken through the build-operate-and-transfer arrangement or any of its variations pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the project proponent x x x may likewise be repaid in the form of a share in the revenue of the project or other non-monetary payments, such as, but not limited to, the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional requirements with respect to the ownership of the land: x x x." (Emphasis supplied) A private corporation, even one that undertakes the physical reclamation of a government BOT project, cannot acquire reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain in view of the constitutional ban. Section 302 of the Local Government Code, also mentioned by PEA and AMARI, authorizes local governments in land reclamation projects to pay the contractor or developer in kind consisting of a percentage of the reclaimed land, to wit: "Section 302. Financing, Construction, Maintenance, Operation, and Management of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector. x x x xxx In case of land reclamation or construction of industrial estates, the repayment plan may consist of the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land or the industrial estate constructed." Although Section 302 of the Local Government Code does not contain a proviso similar to that of the BOT Law, the constitutional restrictions on land ownership automatically apply even though not expressly mentioned in the Local Government Code. Thus, under either the BOT Law or the Local Government Code, the contractor or developer, if a corporate entity, can only be paid with leaseholds on portions of the reclaimed land. If the contractor or developer is an individual, portions of the reclaimed land, not exceeding 12 hectares 96 of nonagricultural lands, may be conveyed to him in ownership in view of the legislative authority allowing such conveyance. This is the only way these provisions of the BOT Law and the Local Government Code can avoid a direct collision with Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Registration of lands of the public domain

Finally, PEA theorizes that the "act of conveying the ownership of the reclaimed lands to public respondent PEA transformed such lands of the public domain to private lands." This theory is echoed by AMARI which maintains that the "issuance of the special patent leading to the eventual issuance of title takes the subject land away from the land of public domain and converts the property into patrimonial or private property." In short, PEA and AMARI contend that with the issuance of Special Patent No. 3517 and the corresponding certificates of titles, the 157.84 hectares comprising the Freedom Islands have become private lands of PEA. In support of their theory, PEA and AMARI cite the following rulings of the Court: 1. Sumail v. Judge of CFI of Cotabato,97 where the Court held "Once the patent was granted and the corresponding certificate of title was issued, the land ceased to be part of the public domain and became private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction." 2. Lee Hong Hok v. David,98 where the Court declared "After the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title based on a public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the operation of Republic Act 496 subject to all the safeguards provided therein."3. Heirs of Gregorio Tengco v. Heirs of Jose Aliwalas,99 where the Court ruled "While the Director of Lands has the power to review homestead patents, he may do so only so long as the land remains part of the public domain and continues to be under his exclusive control; but once the patent is registered and a certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction." 4. Manalo v. Intermediate Appellate Court,100 where the Court held "When the lots in dispute were certified as disposable on May 19, 1971, and free patents were issued covering the same in favor of the private respondents, the said lots ceased to be part of the public domain and, therefore, the Director of Lands lost jurisdiction over the same." 5.Republic v. Court of Appeals,101 where the Court stated "Proclamation No. 350, dated October 9, 1956, of President Magsaysay legally effected a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center, Bureau of Medical Services, Department of Health, of the whole lot, validly sufficient for initial registration under the Land Registration Act. Such land grant is constitutive of a 'fee simple' title or absolute title in favor of petitioner Mindanao Medical Center. Thus, Section 122 of the Act, which governs the registration of grants or patents involving public lands, provides that 'Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the Government of the United States or to the Government of the Philippines are alienated, granted or conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act (Land Registration Act, Act 496) and shall become registered lands.'" The first four cases cited involve petitions to cancel the land patents and the corresponding certificates of titlesissued to private parties. These four cases uniformly hold that the Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over private lands or that upon issuance of the certificate of title the land

automatically comes under the Torrens System. The fifth case cited involves the registration under the Torrens System of a 12.8-hectare public land granted by the National Government to Mindanao Medical Center, a government unit under the Department of Health. The National Government transferred the 12.8-hectare public land to serve as the site for the hospital buildings and other facilities of Mindanao Medical Center, which performed a public service. The Court affirmed the registration of the 12.8-hectare public land in the name of Mindanao Medical Center under Section 122 of Act No. 496. This fifth case is an example of a public land being registered under Act No. 496 without the land losing its character as a property of public dominion. In the instant case, the only patent and certificates of title issued are those in the name of PEA, a wholly government owned corporation performing public as well as proprietary functions. No patent or certificate of title has been issued to any private party. No one is asking the Director of Lands to cancel PEA's patent or certificates of title. In fact, the thrust of the instant petition is that PEA's certificates of title should remain with PEA, and the land covered by these certificates, being alienable lands of the public domain, should not be sold to a private corporation. Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant private or public ownership of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of ownership previously conferred by any of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership. Registration does not give the registrant a better right than what the registrant had prior to the registration.102 The registration of lands of the public domain under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands.103 Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of the patent or issuance of the certificate of title the alienable land of the public domain automatically becomes private land cannot apply to government units and entities like PEA. The transfer of the Freedom Islands to PEA was made subject to the provisions of CA No. 141 as expressly stated in Special Patent No. 3517 issued by then President Aquino, to wit: "NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW YE, that by authority of the Constitution of the Philippines and in conformity with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084 , supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, there are hereby granted and conveyed unto the Public Estates Authority the aforesaid tracts of land containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters; the technical description of which are hereto attached and made an integral part hereof." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the Freedom Islands on matters not covered by PD No. 1084. Section 60 of CA No. 141 prohibits, "except when authorized by Congress," the sale of alienable lands of the public domain that are transferred to government units or entities. Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes, under Section 44 of PD No. 1529, a "statutory lien affecting title" of the registered land even if not annotated on the certificate of title. 104Alienable lands of the public domain held by government entities under Section 60 of CA No. 141 remain public lands because they cannot be alienated or encumbered unless Congress passes a law authorizing their disposition. Congress, however, cannot authorize the sale to private corporations of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain because of the constitutional ban. Only individuals can benefit from such law. The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in accordance with Section 60 of CA No. 141 does not automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain into private or patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public domain must be transferred to qualified private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become illusory if Congress can declare

lands of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the hands of a government agency tasked to dispose of public lands. This will allow private corporations to acquire directly from government agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior to such law, are concededly public lands. Under EO No. 525, PEA became the central implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged areas of the public domain. Thus, EO No. 525 declares that "EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 525 Designating the Public Estates Authority as the Agency Primarily Responsible for all Reclamation Projects Whereas, there are several reclamation projects which are ongoing or being proposed to be undertaken in various parts of the country which need to be evaluated for consistency with national programs; Whereas, there is a need to give further institutional support to the Government's declared policy to provide for a coordinated, economical and efficient reclamation of lands; Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 3-A requires that all reclamation of areas shall be limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under proper contract; Whereas, a central authority is needed to act on behalf of the National Government which shall ensure a coordinated and integrated approach in the reclamation of lands; Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 1084 creates the Public Estates Authority as a government corporation to undertake reclamation of lands and ensure their maximum utilization in promoting public welfare and interests; and Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 1416 provides the President with continuing authority to reorganize the national government including the transfer, abolition, or merger of functions and offices. NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1416, do hereby order and direct the following: Section 1. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; Provided, that, reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity authorized under its charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the PEA upon approval of the President. x x x ." As the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects nationwide, with authority to sell reclaimed lands, PEA took the place of DENR as the government agency charged with leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public domain. The reclaimed lands being leased or sold by PEA are not private lands, in the same manner that DENR, when it disposes of other

alienable lands, does not dispose of private lands but alienable lands of the public domain. Only when qualified private parties acquire these lands will the lands become private lands. In the hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of alienable of disposable lands of the public domain, these lands are still public, not private lands. Furthermore, PEA's charter expressly states that PEA "shall hold lands of the public domain" as well as "any and all kinds of lands." PEA can hold both lands of the public domain and private lands. Thus, the mere fact that alienable lands of the public domain like the Freedom Islands are transferred to PEA and issued land patents or certificates of title in PEA's name does not automatically make such lands private. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA will simply turn around, as PEA has now done under the Amended JVA, and transfer several hundreds of hectares of these reclaimed and still to be reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only one transaction. This scheme will effectively nullify the constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which was intended to diffuse equitably the ownership of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipinos, now numbering over 80 million strong. This scheme, if allowed, can even be applied to alienable agricultural lands of the public domain since PEA can "acquire x x x any and all kinds of lands." This will open the floodgates to corporations and even individuals acquiring hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the guise that in the hands of PEA these lands are private lands. This will result in corporations amassing huge landholdings never before seen in this country - creating the very evil that the constitutional ban was designed to prevent. This will completely reverse the clear direction of constitutional development in this country. The 1935 Constitution allowed private corporations to acquire not more than 1,024 hectares of public lands. 105 The 1973 Constitution prohibited private corporations from acquiring any kind of public land, and the 1987 Constitution has unequivocally reiterated this prohibition. The contention of PEA and AMARI that public lands, once registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529, automatically become private lands is contrary to existing laws. Several laws authorize lands of the public domain to be registered under the Torrens System or Act No. 496, now PD No. 1529, without losing their character as public lands. Section 122 of Act No. 496, and Section 103 of PD No. 1529, respectively, provide as follows: Act No. 496 "Sec. 122. Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the x x x Government of the Philippine Islands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or the public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall become registered lands." PD No. 1529 "Sec. 103. Certificate of Title to Patents. Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree." (Emphasis supplied) Based on its legislative history, the phrase "conveyed to any person" in Section 103 of PD No. 1529 includes conveyances of public lands to public corporations.

Alienable lands of the public domain "granted, donated, or transferred to a province, municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government," as provided in Section 60 of CA No. 141, may be registered under the Torrens System pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529. Such registration, however, is expressly subject to the condition in Section 60 of CA No. 141 that the land "shall not be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress." This provision refers to government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain that have been titled but still cannot be alienated or encumbered unless expressly authorized by Congress. The need for legislative authority prevents the registered land of the public domain from becoming private land that can be disposed of to qualified private parties. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 also recognizes that lands of the public domain may be registered under the Torrens System. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Code states "Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: (1) x x x (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality , by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, private property purchased by the National Government for expansion of a public wharf may be titled in the name of a government corporation regulating port operations in the country. Private property purchased by the National Government for expansion of an airport may also be titled in the name of the government agency tasked to administer the airport. Private property donated to a municipality for use as a town plaza or public school site may likewise be titled in the name of the municipality.106 All these properties become properties of the public domain, and if already registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529, remain registered land. There is no requirement or provision in any existing law for the de-registration of land from the Torrens System. Private lands taken by the Government for public use under its power of eminent domain become unquestionably part of the public domain. Nevertheless, Section 85 of PD No. 1529 authorizes the Register of Deeds to issue in the name of the National Government new certificates of title covering such expropriated lands. Section 85 of PD No. 1529 states "Sec. 85. Land taken by eminent domain. Whenever any registered land, or interest therein, is expropriated or taken by eminent domain, the National Government, province, city or municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right shall file for registration in the proper Registry a certified copy of the judgment which shall state definitely by an adequate description, the particular property or interest expropriated, the number of the certificate of title, and the nature of the public use. A memorandum of the right or interest taken shall be made on each certificate of title by the Register of Deeds, and where the fee simple is taken, a new certificate shall be issued in favor of the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right for the land so taken. The legal expenses incident to the memorandum of registration or issuance of a new certificate of title shall be for the account of the authority taking the land or interest therein." (Emphasis supplied) Consequently, lands registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 are not exclusively private or patrimonial lands. Lands of the public domain may also be registered pursuant to existing laws.

AMARI makes a parting shot that the Amended JVA is not a sale to AMARI of the Freedom Islands or of the lands to be reclaimed from submerged areas of Manila Bay. In the words of AMARI, the Amended JVA "is not a sale but a joint venture with a stipulation for reimbursement of the original cost incurred by PEA for the earlier reclamation and construction works performed by the CDCP under its 1973 contract with the Republic." Whether the Amended JVA is a sale or a joint venture, the fact remains that the Amended JVA requires PEA to "cause the issuance and delivery of the certificates of title conveying AMARI's Land Share in the name of AMARI." 107 This stipulation still contravenes Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that private corporations "shall not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease." The transfer of title and ownership to AMARI clearly means that AMARI will "hold" the reclaimed lands other than by lease. The transfer of title and ownership is a "disposition" of the reclaimed lands, a transaction considered a sale or alienation under CA No. 141, 108 the Government Auditing Code,109 and Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas also form part of the public domain and are also inalienable, unless converted pursuant to law into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the government are sui generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike other alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service. Alienable lands of the public domain, increasingly becoming scarce natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our ever-growing population. To insure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of inalienable natural resources of the State, or seek to circumvent the constitutional ban on alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations, do so at their own risk. We can now summarize our conclusions as follows: 1. 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. 2. The 592.15 hectares of 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 only after PEA has reclaimed 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. 3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. 4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural

resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain. 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 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Under Article 1409112 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. Seventh issue: whether the Court is the proper forum to raise the issue of whether the Amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the government. Considering that the Amended JVA is null and void ab initio, there is no necessity to rule on this last issue. Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts, and this last issue involves a determination of factual matters. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing the Amended Joint Venture Agreement which is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, G.R. No. 164527 Present: PUNO, CJ, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ.

- versus -

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, R-II BUILDERS, INC., R-II HOLDINGS, INC., HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC., and Promulgated: MR. REGHIS ROMERO II, Respondents. August 15, 2007 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.:

In this Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65, petitioner, in his capacity as taxpayer, seeks:
to declare NULL AND VOID the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated March 9, 1993 between the National Housing Authority and R-II Builders, Inc. and the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project embodied therein; the subsequent amendments to the said JVA; and all other agreements signed and executed in relation thereto including, but not limited to the Smokey Mountain Asset Pool Agreement dated 26 September 1994 and the separate agreements for Phase I and Phase II of the Projectas well as all other transactions which emanated therefrom, for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INVALID; to enjoin respondentsparticularly respondent NHAfrom further implementing and/or enforcing the said project and other agreements related thereto, and from further deriving and/or enjoying any rights, privileges and interest therefrom x x x; and to compel respondents to disclose all documents and information relating to the projectincluding, but not limited to, any subsequent agreements with respect to the different phases of the project, the revisions over the original plan, the additional works incurred thereon, the current financial condition of respondent R-II Builders, Inc., and the transactions made respecting the project.[1]

The Facts On March 1, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. (MO) 161[2] approving and directing the implementation of the Comprehensive and Integrated Metropolitan Manila Waste Management Plan (the Plan). The Metro Manila Commission, in coordination with various government agencies, was tasked as the lead agency to implement the Plan as formulated by the Presidential Task Force on Waste Management created by Memorandum Circular No. 39. A day after, on March 2, 1988, MO 161-A[3] was issued, containing the guidelines which prescribed the functions and responsibilities of fifteen (15) various government departments and offices tasked to implement the Plan,

namely: Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Transportation and Communication, Department of Budget and Management, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Philippine Constabulary Integrated National Police, Philippine Information Agency and the Local Government Unit (referring to the City of Manila), Department of Social Welfare and Development, Presidential Commission for Urban Poor, National Housing Authority (NHA), Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Education, Culture and Sports (now Department of Education), and Presidential Management Staff. Specifically, respondent NHA was ordered to conduct feasibility studies and develop low-cost housing projects at the dumpsite and absorb scavengers in NHA resettlement/low-cost housing projects.[4] On the other hand, the DENR was tasked to review and evaluate proposed projects under the Plan with regard to their environmental impact, conduct regular monitoring of activities of the Plan to ensure compliance with environmental standards and assist DOH in the conduct of the study on hospital waste management.[5] At the time MO 161-A was issued by President Aquino, Smokey Mountain was a wasteland in Balut, Tondo, Manila, where numerous Filipinos resided in subhuman conditions, collecting items that may have some monetary value from the garbage. TheSmokey Mountain dumpsite is bounded on the north by the Estero Marala, on the south by the property of the National Government, on the east by the property of B and I Realty Co., and on the west by Radial Road 10 (R-10). Pursuant to MO 161-A, NHA prepared the feasibility studies of the Smokey Mountain low-cost housing project which resulted in the formulation of the Smokey Mountain Development Plan and Reclamation of the Area Across R-10 or the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project (SMDRP; the Project). The Project aimed to convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite into a habitable housing project, inclusive of the reclamation of the area across R-10, adjacent to the Smokey Mountain as the enabling component of the project. [6] Once finalized, the Plan was submitted to President Aquino for her approval.

On July 9, 1990, the Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) Law (Republic Act No. [RA] 6957) was enacted.[7] Its declared policy under Section 1 is [t]o recognize the indispensable role of the private sector as the main engine for national growth and development and provide the most appropriate favorable incentives to mobilize private resources for the purpose. Sec. 3 authorized and empowered [a]ll government infrastructure agencies, including governmentowned and controlled corporations and local government units x x x to enter into contract with any duly pre-qualified private contractor for the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of any financially viable infrastructure facilities through the build-operate-transfer or build and transfer scheme. RA 6957 defined build-and-transfer scheme as [a] contractual arrangement whereby the contractor undertakes the construction, including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and its turnover after the completion to the government agency or local government unit concerned which shall pay the contractor its total investment expended on the project, plus reasonable rate of return thereon. The last paragraph of Sec. 6 of the BOT Law provides that the repayment scheme in the case of land reclamation or the building of industrial estates may consist of [t]he grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land or industrial estate built, subject to the constitutional requirements with respect to the ownership of lands. On February 10, 1992, Joint Resolution No. 03 [8] was passed by both houses of Congress. Sec. 1 of this resolution provided, among other things, that:
Section 1. There is hereby approved the following national infrastructure projects for implementation under the provisions of Republic Act No. 6957 and its implementing rules and regulations: xxxx (d) Port infrastructure like piers, wharves, quays, storage handling, ferry service and related facilities; xxxx

(k) Land reclamation, development facilities;

dredging

and

other

related

(l) Industrial estates, regional industrial centers and export processing zones including steel mills, iron-making and petrochemical complexes and related infrastructure and utilities; xxxx (p) Environmental and solid waste management-related facilities such as collection equipment, composting plants, incinerators, landfill and tidal barriers, among others; and (q) Development of new townsites and communities and related facilities.

This resolution complied with and conformed to Sec. 4 of the BOT Law requiring the approval of all national infrastructure projects by the Congress. On January 17, 1992, President Aquino proclaimed MO 415[9] approving and directing the implementation of the SMDRP. Secs. 3 and 4 of the Memorandum Order stated:
Section 3. The National Housing Authority is hereby directed to implement the Smokey Mountain Development Plan and Reclamation of the Area Across R-10 through a private sector joint venture scheme at the least cost to the government. Section 4. The land area covered by the Smokey Mountain dumpsite is hereby conveyed to the National Housing Authority as well as the area to be reclaimed across R10. (Emphasis supplied.)

In addition, the Public Estates Authority (PEA) was directed to assist in the evaluation of proposals regarding the technical feasibility of reclamation, while the DENR was directed to (1) facilitate titling of Smokey Mountain and of the area to

be reclaimed and (2) assist in the technical evaluation of proposals regarding environmental impact statements.[10] In the same MO 415, President Aquino created an Executive Committee (EXECOM) to oversee the implementation of the Plan, chaired by the National Capital Region-Cabinet Officer for Regional Development (NCR-CORD) with the heads of the NHA, City of Manila, DPWH, PEA, Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), DENR, and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as members. [11] The NEDA subsequently became a member of the EXECOM. Notably, in a September 2, 1994 Letter,[12] PEA General Manager Amado Lagdameo approved the plans for the reclamation project prepared by the NHA. In conformity with Sec. 5 of MO 415, an inter-agency technical committee (TECHCOM) was created composed of the technical representatives of the EXECOM [t]o assist the NHA in the evaluation of the project proposals, assist in the resolution of all issues and problems in the project to ensure that all aspects of the development from squatter relocation, waste management, reclamation, environmental protection, land and house construction meet governing regulation of the region and to facilitate the completion of the project.[13] Subsequently, the TECHCOM put out the Public Notice and Notice to PreQualify and Bid for the right to become NHAs joint venture partner in the implementation of the SMDRP. The notices were published in newspapers of general circulation on January 23 and 26 and February 1, 14, 16, and 23, 1992, respectively. Out of the thirteen (13) contractors who responded, only five (5) contractors fully complied with the required pre-qualification documents. Based on the evaluation of the pre-qualification documents, the EXECOM declared the New San Jose Builders, Inc. and R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) as the top two contractors.[14] Thereafter, the TECHCOM evaluated the bids (which include the Prefeasibility Study and Financing Plan) of the top two (2) contractors in this manner: (1) The DBP, as financial advisor to the Project, evaluated their Financial Proposals;

(2) The DPWH, PPA, PEA and NHA evaluated the Technical Proposals for the Housing Construction and Reclamation; (3) The DENR evaluated Technical Proposals on Waste Management and Disposal by conducting the Environmental Impact Analysis; and (4) The NHA and the City of Manila evaluated the socio-economic benefits presented by the proposals. On June 30, 1992, Fidel V. Ramos assumed the Office of the President (OP) of the Philippines. On August 31, 1992, the TECHCOM submitted its recommendation to the EXECOM to approve the R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) proposal which garnered the highest score of 88.475%.

Subsequently, the EXECOM made a Project briefing to President Ramos. As a result, President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 39 [15] on September 9, 1992, which reads:
WHEREAS, the National Housing Authority has presented a viable conceptual plan to convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite into a habitable housing project, inclusive of the reclamation of the area across Road Radial 10 (R-10) adjacent to the Smokey Mountain as the enabling component of the project; xxxx These parcels of land of public domain are hereby placed under the administration and disposition of the National Housing Authority to develop, subdivide and dispose to qualified beneficiaries, as well as its development for mix land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to onsite families and additional areas for port-related activities. In order to facilitate the early development of the area for disposition, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,

through the Lands and Management Bureau, is hereby directed to approve the boundary and subdivision survey and to issue a special patent and title in the name of the National Housing Authority, subject to final survey and private rights, if any there be. (Emphasis supplied.)

On October 7, 1992, President Ramos authorized NHA to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with RBI [s]ubject to final review and approval of the Joint Venture Agreement by the Office of the President.[16] On March 19, 1993, the NHA and RBI entered into a Joint Venture Agreement[17] (JVA) for the development of the SmokeyMountain dumpsite and the reclamation of the area across R-10 based on Presidential Decree No. (PD) 757[18] which mandated NHA [t]o undertake the physical and socio-economic upgrading and development of lands of the public domain identified for housing, MO 161-A which required NHA to conduct the feasibility studies and develop a low-cost housing project at the Smokey Mountain, and MO 415 as amended by MO 415-A which approved the Conceptual Plan for Smokey Mountain and creation of the EXECOM and TECHCOM. Under the JVA, the Project involves the clearing of Smokey Mountain for eventual development into a low cost medium rise housing complex and industrial/commercial site with the reclamation of the area directly across [R-10] to act as the enabling component of the Project.[19] The JVA covered a lot in Tondo, Manila with an area of two hundred twelve thousand two hundred thirty-four (212,234) square meters and another lot to be reclaimed also in Tondo with an area of four hundred thousand (400,000) square meters. The Scope of Work of RBI under Article II of the JVA is as follows:
a) To fully finance all aspects of development of Smokey Mountain and reclamation of no more than 40 hectares of Manila Bay area across Radial Road 10. b) To immediately commence on the preparation of feasibility report and detailed engineering with emphasis to the expedient acquisition of the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR.

c) The construction activities will only commence after the acquisition of the ECC, and d) Final details of the contract, including construction, duration and delivery timetables, shall be based on the approved feasibility report and detailed engineering.

Other obligations of RBI are as follows:

2.02 The [RBI] shall develop the PROJECT based on the Final Report and Detailed Engineering as approved by the Office of the President. All costs and expenses for hiring technical personnel, date gathering, permits, licenses, appraisals, clearances, testing and similar undertaking shall be for the account of the [RBI]. 2.03 The [RBI] shall undertake the construction of 3,500 temporary housing units complete with basic amenities such as plumbing, electrical and sewerage facilities within the temporary housing project as staging area to temporarily house the squatter families from the SmokeyMountain while development is being undertaken. These temporary housing units shall be turned over to the [NHA] for disposition. 2.04 The [RBI] shall construct 3,500 medium rise low cost permanent housing units on the leveled Smokey Mountain complete with basic utilities and amenities, in accordance with the plans and specifications set forth in the Final Report approved by the [NHA]. Completed units ready for mortgage take out shall be turned over by the [RBI] to NHA on agreed schedule. 2.05 The [RBI] shall reclaim forty (40) hectares of Manila Bay area directly across [R-10] as contained in Proclamation No. 39 as the enabling component of the project and payment to the [RBI] as its asset share. 2.06 The [RBI] shall likewise furnish all labor materials and equipment necessary to complete all herein development works to be undertaken on a phase to phase basis in accordance with the work program stipulated therein.

The profit sharing shall be based on the approved pre-feasibility report submitted to the EXECOM, viz: For the developer (RBI):
1. To own the forty (40) hectares of reclaimed land. area at

2. To own the commercial the Smokey Mountain area composed of 1.3 hectares, and

3. To own all the constructed units of medium rise low cost permanent housing units beyond the 3,500 units share of the [NHA].

For the NHA:

1. To own the temporary housing consisting of 3,500 units.

2. To own the cleared and fenced incinerator site consisting of 5 hectares situated at the Smokey Mountain area. 3. To own the 3,500 units of permanent housing to be constructed by [RBI] at the Smokey Mountain area to be awarded to qualified on site residents. 4. and 5. To own the open spaces, roads and facilities within the Smokey Mountain area. To own the Industrial Area site consisting of 3.2 hectares,

In the event of extraordinary increase in labor, materials, fuel and nonrecoverability of total project expenses,[20] the OP, upon recommendation of the NHA, may approve a corresponding adjustment in the enabling component. The functions and responsibilities of RBI and NHA are as follows:

For RBI:
4.01 Immediately commence on the preparation of the FINAL REPORT with emphasis to the expedient acquisition, with the assistance of the [NHA] of Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the [DENR]. Construction shall only commence after the acquisition of the ECC. The Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) shall form part of the FINAL REPORT. The FINAL REPORT shall provide the necessary subdivision and housing plans, detailed engineering and architectural drawings, technical specifications and other related and required documents relative to the Smokey Mountain area. With respect to the 40-hectare reclamation area, the [RBI] shall have the discretion to develop the same in a manner that it deems necessary to recover the [RBIs] investment, subject to environmental and zoning rules. 4.02 Finance the total project cost for land development, housing construction and reclamation of the PROJECT. 4.03 Warrant that all developments shall be in compliance with the requirements of the FINAL REPORT. 4.04 Provide all administrative resources for the submission of project accomplishment reports to the [NHA] for proper evaluation and supervision on the actual implementation. 4.05 Negotiate and secure, with the assistance of the [NHA] the grant of rights of way to the PROJECT, from the owners of the adjacent lots for access road, water, electrical power connections and drainage facilities. 4.06 Provide temporary field office and transportation vehicles (2 units), one (1) complete set of computer and one (1) unit electric typewriter for the [NHAs] field personnel to be charged to the PROJECT.

For the NHA:

4.07 The [NHA] shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of all squatters within Smokey Mountain to the Temporary Housing Complex or to other areas prepared as relocation areas with the assistance of the [RBI]. The [RBI] shall be responsible in releasing the funds allocated and committed for relocation as detailed in the FINAL REPORT. 4.08 Assist the [RBI] and shall endorse granting of exemption fees in the acquisition of all necessary permits, licenses, appraisals, clearances and accreditations for the PROJECT subject to existing laws, rules and regulations. 4.09 The [NHA] shall inspect, evaluate and monitor all works at the Smokey Mountain and Reclamation Area while the land development and construction of housing units are in progress to determine whether the development and construction works are undertaken in accordance with the FINAL REPORT. If in its judgment, the PROJECT is not pursued in accordance with the FINAL REPORT, the [NHA] shall require the [RBI] to undertake necessary remedial works. All expenses, charges and penalties incurred for such remedial, if any, shall be for the account of the [RBI]. 4.10 The [NHA] shall assist the [RBI] in the complete electrification of the PROJECT. x x x 4.11 Handle the processing and documentation of all sales transactions related to its assets shares from the venture such as the 3,500 units of permanent housing and the allotted industrial area of 3.2 hectares. 4.12 All advances outside of project costs made by the [RBI] to the [NHA] shall be deducted from the proceeds due to the [NHA]. 4.13 The [NHA] shall be responsible for the acquisition of the Mother Title for the Smokey Mountain and Reclamation Area within 90 days upon submission of Survey returns to the Land Management Sector. The land titles to the 40-hectare reclaimed land, the 1.3 hectare commercial area at the Smokey Mountain area and the constructed units

of medium-rise permanent housing units beyond the 3,500 units share of the [NHA] shall be issued in the name of the [RBI] upon completion of the project. However, the [RBI] shall have the authority to pre-sell its share as indicated in this agreement.

The final details of the JVA, which will include the construction duration, costs, extent of reclamation, and delivery timetables, shall be based on the FINAL REPORT which will be contained in a Supplemental Agreement to be executed later by the parties. The JVA may be modified or revised by written agreement between the NHA and RBI specifying the clauses to be revised or modified and the corresponding amendments. If the Project is revoked or terminated by the Government through no fault of RBI or by mutual agreement, the Government shall compensate RBI for its actual expenses incurred in the Project plus a reasonable rate of return not exceeding that stated in the feasibility study and in the contract as of the date of such revocation, cancellation, or termination on a schedule to be agreed upon by both parties. As a preliminary step in the project implementation, consultations and dialogues were conducted with the settlers of the Smokey Mountain Dumpsite Area. At the same time, DENR started processing the application for the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) of the SMDRP. As a result however of the consultative dialogues, public hearings, the report on the on-site field conditions, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published on April 29 and May 12, 1993 as required by the Environmental Management Bureau of DENR, the evaluation of the DENR, and the recommendations from other government agencies, it was discovered that design changes and additional work have to be undertaken to successfully implement the Project.[21] Thus, on February 21, 1994, the parties entered into another agreement denominated as the Amended and Restated Joint Venture Agreement[22] (ARJVA)

which delineated the different phases of the Project. Phase I of the Project involves the construction of temporary housing units for the current residents of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite, the clearing and leveling-off of the dumpsite, and the construction of medium-rise low-cost housing units at the cleared and leveled dumpsite.[23] Phase II of the Project involves the construction of an incineration area for the on-site disposal of the garbage at the dumpsite. [24] The enabling component or consideration for Phase I of the Project was increased from 40 hectares of reclaimed lands across R-10 to 79 hectares.[25] The revision also provided for the enabling component for Phase II of 119 hectares of reclaimed lands contiguous to the 79 hectares of reclaimed lands for Phase I.[26] Furthermore, the amended contract delineated the scope of works and the terms and conditions of Phases I and II, thus:
The PROJECT shall consist of Phase I and Phase II. Phase I shall involve the following: a. the construction of 2,992 units of temporary housing for the affected residents while clearing and development of Smokey Mountain [are] being undertaken b. the clearing of Smokey Mountain and the subsequent construction of 3,520 units of medium rise housing and the development of the industrial/commercial site within the Smokey Mountain area c. the reclamation and development of a 79 hectare area directly across Radial Road 10 to serve as the enabling component of Phase I Phase II shall involve the following: a. will the construction and operation of an incinerator plant that conform to the emission standards of the DENR

b. the reclamation and development of 119-hectare area contiguous to that to be reclaimed under Phase I to serve as the enabling component of Phase II.

Under the ARJVA, RBI shall construct 2,992 temporary housing units, a reduction from 3,500 units under the JVA.[27] However, it was required to construct 3,520 medium-rise low-cost permanent housing units instead of 3,500 units under the JVA. There was a substantial change in the design of the permanent housing units such that a loft shall be incorporated in each unit so as to increase the living space from 20 to 32 square meters. The additions and changes in the Original Project Component are as follows:
ORIGINAL 1. TEMPORARY HOUSING Wood/Plywood, ga. 31 G.I. Concrete/Steel Frame Structure Sheet usable life of 3 years, gauge 26 G.I. roofing sheets future 12 SM floor area. use as permanent structures for factory and warehouses mixed 17 sm & 12 sm floor area. 2. MEDIUM RISE MASS HOUSING Box type precast Shelter Conventional and precast component 20 square meter concrete structures, 32 square floor area with 2.4 meter m eter floor area with loft floor height; bare type, 160 units/ (sleeping quarter) 3.6 m. floor building. height, painted and improved architectural faade, 80 units / building. 3. MITIGATING MEASURES CHANGES/REVISIONS

3.1 For reclamation work

Use of clean dredgefill material below the MLLW and SM material mixed with dredgefill above MLLW.

a. 100% use of Smokey Mountain material as dredgefill needed embedment. b. Concrete Sheet Piles short depth of embedment

Use of Steel Sheet Piles for longer depth of

c. Silt removal approximately Need to remove more than 3.0 1.0 meter only meters of silt after sub-soil investigation.[28]

These material and substantial modifications served as justifications for the increase in the share of RBI from 40 hectares to 79 hectares of reclaimed land. Under the JVA, the specific costs of the Project were not stipulated but under the ARJVA, the stipulated cost for Phase I was pegged at six billion six hundred ninety-three million three hundred eighty-seven thousand three hundred sixty-four pesos (PhP 6,693,387,364). In his February 10, 1994 Memorandum, the Chairperson of the SMDRP EXECOM submitted the ARJVA for approval by the OP. After review of said agreement, the OP directed that certain terms and conditions of the ARJVA be further clarified or amended preparatory to its approval. Pursuant to the Presidents directive, the parties reached an agreement on the clarifications and amendments required to be made on the ARJVA. On August 11, 1994, the NHA and RBI executed an Amendment To the Amended and Restated Joint Venture Agreement (AARJVA) [29] clarifying certain

terms and condition of the ARJVA, which was submitted to President Ramos for approval, to wit:
Phase II shall involve the following: a. the construction and operation of an incinerator plant that will conform to the emission standards of the DENR b. the reclamation and development of 119-hectare area contiguous to that to be reclaimed under Phase I to serve as the enabling component of Phase II, the exact size and configuration of which shall be approved by the SMDRP Committee[30]

Other substantial amendments are the following:

4. Paragraph 2.05 of Article II of the ARJVA is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.05. The DEVELOPER shall reclaim seventy nine (79) hectares of the Manila Bay area directly across Radial Road 10 (R-10) to serve as payment to the DEVELOPER as its asset share for Phase I and to develop such land into commercial area with port facilities; provided, that the port plan shall be integrated with the Philippine Port Authoritys North Harbor plan for the Manila Bay area and provided further, that the final reclamation and port plan for said reclaimed area shall be submitted for approval by the Public Estates Authority and the Philippine Ports Authority, respectively: provided finally, that subject to par. 2.02 above, actual reclamation work may commence upon approval of the final reclamation plan by the Public Estates Authority. xxxx 9. A new paragraph to be numbered 5.05 shall be added to Article V of the ARJVA, and shall read as follows:

5.05. In the event this Agreement is revoked, cancelled or terminated by the AUTHORITY through no fault of the DEVELOPER, the AUTHORITY shall compensate the DEVELOPER for the value of the completed portions of, and actual expenditures on the PROJECT plus a reasonable rate of return thereon, not exceeding that stated in the Cost Estimates of Items of Work previously approved by the SMDRP Executive Committee and the AUTHORITY and stated in this Agreement, as of the date of such revocation, cancellation, or termination, on a schedule to be agreed upon by the parties, provided that said completed portions of Phase I are in accordance with the approved FINAL REPORT.

Afterwards, President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 465 dated August 31, 1994 increasing the proposed area for reclamation across R-10 from 40 hectares to 79 hectares,[32] to wit:
[31]

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the law, and as recommended by the SMDRP Executive Committee, do hereby authorize the increase of the area of foreshore or submerged lands of Manila Bay to be reclaimed, as previously authorized under Proclamation No. 39 (s. 1992) and Memorandum Order No. 415 (s. 1992), from Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) square meters, more or less, to Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand (790,000) square meters, more or less.

On September 1, 1994, pursuant to Proclamation No. 39, the DENR issued Special Patent No. 3591 conveying in favor of NHA an area of 211,975 square meters covering the Smokey Mountain Dumpsite. In its September 7, 1994 letter to the EXECOM, the OP through then Executive Secretary Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., approved the ARJVA as amended by the AARJVA.

On September 8, 1994, the DENR issued Special Patent 3592 pursuant to Proclamation No. 39, conveying in favor of NHA a 401,485-square meter area. On September 26, 1994, the NHA, RBI, Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC), now known as the Home Guaranty Corporation, and the Philippine National Bank (PNB)[33] executed the Smokey Mountain Asset Pool Formation Trust Agreement (Asset Pool Agreement).[34] Thereafter, a Guaranty Contract was entered into by NHA, RBI, and HIGC. On June 23, 1994, the Legislature passed the Clean Air Act. [35] The Act made the establishment of an incinerator illegal and effectively barred the implementation of the planned incinerator project under Phase II. Thus, the offsite disposal of the garbage at the Smokey Mountain became necessary.[36] The land reclamation was completed in August 1996.[37] Sometime later in 1996, pursuant likewise to Proclamation No. 39, the DENR issued Special Patent No. 3598 conveying in favor of NHA an additional 390,000 square meter area. During the actual construction and implementation of Phase I of the SMDRP, the Inter-Agency Technical Committee found and recommended to the EXECOM on December 17, 1997 that additional works were necessary for the completion and viability of the Project. The EXECOM approved the recommendation and so, NHA instructed RBI to implement the change orders or necessary works.[38] Such necessary works comprised more than 25% of the original contract price and as a result, the Asset Pool incurred direct and indirect costs. Based on C1 12 A of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 1594, a supplemental agreement is required for all change orders and extra work orders, the total aggregate cost of which being more than twenty-five (25%) of the escalated original contract price. The EXECOM requested an opinion from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to determine whether a bidding was required for the change orders and/or

necessary works. The DOJ, through DOJ Opinion Nos. 119 and 155 dated August 26, 1993 and November 12, 1993, opined that a rebidding, pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of the implementing rules (referring to PD 1594) would not be necessary where the change orders inseparable from the original scope of the project, in which case, a negotiation with the incumbent contractor may be allowed. Thus, on February 19, 1998, the EXECOM issued a resolution directing NHA to enter into a supplemental agreement covering said necessary works. On March 20, 1998, the NHA and RBI entered into a Supplemental Agreement covering the aforementioned necessary works and submitted it to the President on March 24, 1998 for approval. Outgoing President Ramos decided to endorse the consideration of the Supplemental Agreement to incoming President Joseph E. Estrada. On June 30, 1998, Estrada became the 13th Philippine President. However, the approval of the Supplemental Agreement was unacted upon for five months. As a result, the utilities and the road networks were constructed to cover only the 79-hectare original enabling component granted under the ARJVA. The 220-hectare extension of the 79-hectare area was no longer technically feasible. Moreover, the financial crises and unreliable real estate situation made it difficult to sell the remaining reclaimed lots. The devaluation of the peso and the increase in interest cost led to the substantial increase in the cost of reclamation. On August 1, 1998, the NHA granted RBIs request to suspend work on the SMDRP due to the delay in the approval of the Supplemental Agreement, the consequent absence of an enabling component to cover the cost of the necessary works for the project, and the resulting inability to replenish the Asset Pool funds partially used for the completion of the necessary works.[39] As of August 1, 1998 when the project was suspended, RBI had already accomplished a portion of the necessary works and change orders which resulted in [RBI] and the Asset Pool incurring advances for direct and indirect cost which

amount can no longer be covered by the 79-hectare enabling component under the ARJVA.[40] Repeated demands were made by RBI in its own capacity and on behalf of the asset pool on NHA for payment for the advances for direct and indirect costs subject to NHA validation. In November 1998, President Estrada issued Memorandum Order No. 33 reconstituting the SMDRP EXECOM and further directed it to review the Supplemental Agreement and submit its recommendation on the completion of the SMDRP. The reconstituted EXECOM conducted a review of the project and recommended the amendment of the March 20, 1998 Supplemental Agreement to make it more feasible and to identify and provide new sources of funds for the project and provide for a new enabling component to cover the payment for the necessary works that cannot be covered by the 79-hectare enabling component under the ARJVA.[41] The EXECOM passed Resolution Nos. 99-16-01 and 99-16-02[42] which approved the modification of the Supplemental Agreement, to wit:
a) Approval of 150 hectares additional reclamation in order to make the reclamation feasible as part of the enabling component. b) The conveyance of the 15-hectare NHA Vitas property (actually 17 hectares based on surveys) to the SMDRP Asset Pool. c) The inclusion in the total development cost of other additional, necessary and indispensable infrastructure works and the revision of the original cost stated in the Supplemental Agreement dated March 20, 1998 from PhP 2,953,984,941.40 to PhP 2,969,134,053.13. d) Revision in the sharing agreement between the parties.

In the March 23, 2000 OP Memorandum, the EXECOM was authorized to proceed and complete the SMDRP subject to certain guidelines and directives. After the parties in the case at bar had complied with the March 23, 2000 Memorandum, the NHA November 9, 2000 Resolution No. 4323 approved the conveyance of the 17-hectare Vitas property in favor of the existing or a newly created Asset Pool of the project to be developed into a mixed commercialindustrial area, subject to certain conditions. On January 20, 2001, then President Estrada was considered resigned. On the same day, President Gloria M. Arroyo took her oath as the 14th President of the Philippines. As of February 28, 2001, the estimated total project cost of the SMDRP has reached P8.65 billion comprising of P4.78 billion in direct cost and P3.87 billion in indirect cost,[43] subject to validation by the NHA. On August 28, 2001, NHA issued Resolution No. 4436 to pay for the various necessary works/change orders to SMDRP, to effect the corresponding enabling component consisting of the conveyance of the NHAs Vitas Property and an additional 150-hectare reclamation area and to authorize the release by NHA of PhP 480 million as advance to the project to make the Permanent Housing habitable, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the expanded enabling component.[44] On November 19, 2001, the Amended Supplemental Agreement (ASA) was signed by the parties, and on February 28, 2002, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) submitted the agreement to the OP for approval. In the July 20, 2002 Cabinet Meeting, HUDCC was directed to submit the works covered by the PhP 480 million [advance to the Project] and the ASA to public bidding.[45] On August 28, 2002, the HUDCC informed RBI of the decision of the Cabinet. In its September 2, 2002 letter to the HUDCC Chairman, RBI lamented the decision of the government to bid out the remaining works under the ASA thereby

unilaterally terminating the Project with RBI and all the agreements related thereto. RBI demanded the payment of just compensation for all accomplishments and costs incurred in developing the SMDRP plus a reasonable rate of return thereon pursuant to Section 5.05 of the ARJVA and Section 6.2 of the ASA.[46] Consequently, the parties negotiated the terms of the termination of the JVA and other subsequent agreements. On August 27, 2003, the NHA and RBI executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby both parties agreed to terminate the JVA and other subsequent agreements, thus:
1. TERMINATION 1.1 In compliance with the Cabinet directive dated 30 July 2002 to submit the works covered by the P480 Million and the ASA to public bidding, the following agreements executed by and between the NHA and the DEVELOPER are hereby terminated, to wit: a. b. c. d. e. xxxx 5. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS 5.1 Subject to the validation of the DEVELOPERs claims, the NHA hereby agrees to initially compensate the Developer for the abovementioned costs as follows: Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 19 March 1993 Amended and Restated Joint Venture Agreement (ARJVA) dated 21 February 1994 Amendment and Restated Joint Venture Agreement dated 11 August 1994 Supplemental Agreement dated 24 March 1998 Amended Supplemental Agreement (ASA) dated 19 November 2001.

a.

Direct payment to DEVELOPER of the amounts herein listed in the following manner: a.1 a.2 P250 Million in cash from the escrow account in accordance with Section 2 herewith; Conveyance of a 3 hectare portion of the Vitas Industrial area immediately after joint determination of the appraised value of the said property in accordance with the procedure herein set forth in the last paragraph of Section 5.3. For purposes of all payments to be made through conveyance of real properties, the parties shall secure from the NHA Board of Directors all documents necessary and sufficient to effect the transfer of title over the properties to be conveyed to RBI, which documents shall be issued within a reasonable period.

5.2

Any unpaid balance of the DEVELOPERS claims determined after the validation process referred to in Section 4 hereof, may be paid in cash, bonds or through the conveyance of properties or any combination thereof. The manner, terms and conditions of payment of the balance shall be specified and agreed upon later within a period of three months from the time a substantial amount representing the unpaid balance has been validated pursuant hereto including, but not limited to the programming of quarterly cash payments to be sourced by the NHA from its budget for debt servicing, from its income or from any other sources. In any case the unpaid balance is agreed to be paid, either partially or totally through conveyance of properties, the parties shall agree on which properties shall be subject to conveyance. The NHA and DEVELOPER hereby agree to determine the valuation of the properties to be conveyed by getting the average of the appraisals to be made by two (2) mutually acceptable independent appraisers.

5.3

Meanwhile, respondent Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. (HCPTI) entered into an agreement with the asset pool for the development and operations of a port in the Smokey Mountain Area which is a major component of SMDRP to provide a source of livelihood and employment for Smokey Mountain residents and spur economic growth. A Subscription Agreement was executed between the Asset Pool and HCPTI whereby the asset pool subscribed to 607 million common shares and 1,143 million preferred shares of HCPTI. The HCPTI preferred shares had a premium and penalty interest of 7.5% per annum and a mandatory redemption feature. The asset pool paid the subscription by conveying to HCPTI a 10-hectare land which it acquired from the NHA being a portion of the reclaimed land of the SMDRP. Corresponding certificates of titles were issued to HCPTI, namely: TCT Nos. 251355, 251356, 251357, and 251358. Due to HCPTIs failure to obtain a license to handle foreign containerized cargo from PPA, it suffered a net income loss of PhP 132,621,548 in 2002 and a net loss of PhP 15,540,063 in 2003. The Project Governing Board of the Asset Pool later conveyed by way of dacion en pago a number of HCPTI shares to RBI in lieu of cash payment for the latters work in SMDRP. On August 5, 2004, former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez, filed the instant petition which impleaded as respondents the NHA, RBI, R-II Holdings, Inc. (RHI), HCPTI, and Mr. Reghis Romero II, raising constitutional issues. The NHA reported that thirty-four (34) temporary housing structures and twenty-one (21) permanent housing structures had been turned over by respondent RBI. It claimed that 2,510 beneficiary-families belonging to the poorest of the poor had been transferred to their permanent homes and benefited from the Project.

The Issues The grounds presented in the instant petition are: I

NEITHER RESPONDENT NHA NOR RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS MAY VALIDLY RECLAIM FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED LAND BECAUSE: 1. RESPONDENT NHA AND R-II BUILDERS WERE NEVER GRANTED ANY POWER AND AUTHORITY TO RECLAIM LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS THIS POWER IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE PEA. 2. EVEN ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENTS NHA AND RII BUILDERS WERE GIVEN THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO RECLAIM FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED LAND, THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN THE AUTHORITY BY THE DENR TO DO SO. II RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS CANNOT ACQUIRE THE RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED LAND AREAS BECAUSE: 1. THE RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED PARCELS OF LAND ARE INALIENABLE PUBLIC LANDS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE COMMERCE OF MAN. 2. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE SUBJECT RECLAIMED FORESHORE AND SUBMERGED PARCELS OF LAND WERE ALREADY DECLARED ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS STILL COULD NOT ACQUIRE THE SAME BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER ANY DECLARATION THAT THE SAID LANDS WERE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE.

3. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE SUBJECT RECLAIMED LANDS ARE ALIENABLE AND NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE, RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS STILL CANNOT ACQUIRE THE SAME BECAUSE THERE

WAS NEVER ANY LAW AUTHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF. 4. THERE AWARDING RESPONDENT 5. WAS NEVER ANY PUBLIC BIDDING OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT LAND TO R-II BUILDERS.

ASSUMING THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID TRANSFER OF ALIENABLE PUBLIC HAD BEEN PERFORMED, RESPONDENT R-II BUILDERS, BEING PRIVATE CORPORATION IS NONETHELESS EXPRESSLYPROHIBITED BY THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION TO ACQUIRE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. III

RESPONDENT HARBOUR, BEING A PRIVATE CORPORATION WHOSE MAJORITY STOCKS ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY RESPONDENT ROMEROS CORPORATIONS R-II BUILDERS AND R-II HOLDINGS IS DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING A TRANSFEREE OF PUBLIC LAND. IV RESPONDENTS MUST BE COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE ALL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE SMOKEY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION PROJECT.

The Courts Ruling Before we delve into the substantive issues raised in this petition, we will first deal with several procedural matters raised by respondents. Whether petitioner has the requisite locus standi to file this case Respondents argue that petitioner Chavez has no legal standing to file the petition.

Only a person who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or entitled to the avails of the suit can file a complaint or petition. [47] Respondents claim that petitioner is not a proper party-in-interest as he was unable to show that he has sustained or is in immediate or imminent danger of sustaining some direct and personal injury as a result of the execution and enforcement of the assailed contracts or agreements. [48] Moreover, they assert that not all government contracts can justify a taxpayers suit especially when no public funds were utilized in contravention of the Constitution or a law. We explicated in Chavez v. PCGG[49] that in cases where issues of transcendental public importance are presented, there is no necessity to show that petitioner has experienced or is in actual danger of suffering direct and personal injury as the requisite injury is assumed. We find our ruling in Chavez v. PEA[50] as conclusive authority on locus standi in the case at bar since the issues raised in this petition are averred to be in breach of the fair diffusion of the countrys natural resources and the constitutional right of a citizen to information which have been declared to be matters of transcendental public importance. Moreover, the pleadings especially those of respondents readily reveal that public funds have been indirectly utilized in the Project by means of Smokey Mountain Project Participation Certificates (SMPPCs) bought by some government agencies. Hence, petitioner, as a taxpayer, is a proper party to the instant petition before the court. Whether petitioners direct recourse to this Court was proper Respondents are one in asserting that petitioner circumvents the principle of hierarchy of courts in his petition. Judicial hierarchy was made clear in the case of People v. Cuaresma, thus:
There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should

be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket.[51] x x x

The OSG claims that the jurisdiction over petitions for prohibition and mandamus is concurrent with other lower courts like the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. Respondent NHA argues that the instant petition is misfiled because it does not introduce special and important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances to warrant direct recourse to this Court and that the lower courts are more equipped for factual issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. Respondents RBI and RHI question the filing of the petition as this Court should not be unduly burdened with repetitions, invocation of jurisdiction over constitutional questions it had previously resolved and settled. In the light of existing jurisprudence, we find paucity of merit in respondents postulation. While direct recourse to this Court is generally frowned upon and discouraged, we have however ruled in Santiago v. Vasquez that such resort to us may be allowed in certain situations, wherein this Court ruled that petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, though cognizable by other courts, may directly be filed with us if the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of [this Courts] primary jurisdiction.[52] The instant petition challenges the constitutionality and legality of the SMDRP involving several hectares of government land and hundreds of millions of funds of several government agencies. Moreover, serious constitutional challenges are made on the different aspects of the Project which allegedly affect the right of Filipinos to the distribution of natural resources in the country and the right to information of a citizenmatters which have been considered to be of extraordinary significance and grave consequence to the public in general. These

concerns in the instant action compel us to turn a blind eye to the judicial structure meant to provide an orderly dispensation of justice and consider the instant petition as a justified deviation from an established precept. Core factual matters undisputed Respondents next challenge the projected review by this Court of the alleged factual issues intertwined in the issues propounded by petitioner. They listed a copious number of questions seemingly factual in nature which would make this Court a trier of facts.[53] We find the position of respondents bereft of merit. For one, we already gave due course to the instant petition in our January 18, 2005 Resolution.[54] In said issuance, the parties were required to make clear and concise statements of established facts upon which our decision will be based. Secondly, we agree with petitioner that there is no necessity for us to make any factual findings since the facts needed to decide the instant petition are well established from the admissions of the parties in their pleadings [55] and those derived from the documents appended to said submissions. Indeed, the core facts which are the subject matter of the numerous issues raised in this petition are undisputed. Now we will tackle the issues that prop up the instant petition. Since petitioner has cited our decision in PEA as basis for his postulations in a number of issues, we first resolve the queryis PEA applicable to the case at bar? A juxtaposition of the facts in the two cases constrains the Court to rule in the negative. The Court finds that PEA is not a binding precedent to the instant petition because the facts in said case are substantially different from the facts and circumstances in the case at bar, thus:

(1) The reclamation project in PEA was undertaken through a JVA entered into between PEA and AMARI. The reclamation project in the instant NHA case was undertaken by the NHA, a national government agency in consultation with PEA and with the approval of two Philippine Presidents; (2) In PEA, AMARI and PEA executed a JVA to develop the Freedom Islands and reclaim submerged areas without public bidding on April 25, 1995. In the instant NHA case, the NHA and RBI executed a JVA after RBI was declared the winning bidder onAugust 31, 1992 as the JVA partner of the NHA in the SMDRP after compliance with the requisite public bidding. (3) In PEA, there was no law or presidential proclamation classifying the lands to be reclaimed as alienable and disposal lands of public domain. In this RBI case, MO 415 of former President Aquino and Proclamation No. 39 of then President Ramos, coupled with Special Patents Nos. 3591, 3592, and 3598, classified the reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable; (4) In PEA, the Chavez petition was filed before the amended JVA was executed by PEA and AMARI. In this NHA case, the JVA and subsequent amendments were already substantially implemented. Subsequently, the Project was terminated through a MOA signed on August 27, 2003. Almost one year later on August 5, 2004, the Chavez petition was filed; (5) In PEA, AMARI was considered to be in bad faith as it signed the amended JVA after the Chavez petition was filed with the Court and after Senate Committee Report No. 560 was issued finding that the subject lands are inalienable lands of public domain. In the instant petition, RBI and other respondents are considered to have signed the agreements in good faith as the Project was terminated even before the Chavez petition was filed; (6) The PEA-AMARI JVA was executed as a result of direct negotiation between the parties and not in accordance with the BOT Law. The NHA-RBI JVA and subsequent amendments constitute a BOT contract governed by the BOT Law; and

(7) In PEA, the lands to be reclaimed or already reclaimed were transferred to PEA, a government entity tasked to dispose of public lands under Executive Order No. (EO) 525.[56] In the NHA case, the reclaimed lands were transferred to NHA, a government entity NOT tasked to dispose of public land and therefore said alienable lands were converted to patrimonial lands upon their transfer to NHA.[57] Thus the PEA Decision[58] cannot be considered an authority or precedent to the instant case. The principle of stare decisis[59] has no application to the different factual setting of the instant case. We will now dwell on the substantive issues raised by petitioner. After a perusal of the grounds raised in this petition, we find that most of these issues are moored on our PEA Decision which, as earlier discussed, has no application to the instant petition. For this reason alone, the petition can already be rejected. Nevertheless, on the premise of the applicability of said decision to the case at bar, we will proceed to resolve said issues. First Issue: Whether respondents NHA and RBI have been granted the power and authority to reclaim lands of the public domain as this power is vested exclusively in PEA as claimed by petitioner

Petitioner contends that neither respondent NHA nor respondent RBI may validly reclaim foreshore and submerged land because they were not given any power and authority to reclaim lands of the public domain as this power was delegated by law to PEA. Asserting that existing laws did not empower the NHA and RBI to reclaim lands of public domain, the Public Estates Authority (PEA), petitioner claims, is the primary authority for the reclamation of all foreshore and submerged lands of public domain, and relies on PEA where this Court held:
Moreover, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 525 provides that PEA shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and

coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. The same section also states that [A]ll reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; x x x. Thus, under EO No. 525, in relation to PD No. 3-A and PD No. 1084, PEA became the primary implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of the public domain. EO No. 525 recognized PEA as the government entity to undertake the reclamation of lands and ensure their maximum utilization in promoting public welfare and interests. Since large portions of these reclaimed lands would obviously be needed for public service, there must be a formal declaration segregating reclaimed lands no longer needed for public service from those still needed for public service. [60]

In the Smokey Mountain Project, petitioner clarifies that the reclamation was not done by PEA or through a contract executed by PEA with another person or entity but by the NHA through an agreement with respondent RBI. Therefore, he concludes that the reclamation is null and void. Petitioners contention has no merit. EO 525 reads:
Section 1. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; Provided, that, reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity authorized under its charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the PEA upon approval of the President. (Emphasis supplied.)

The aforequoted provision points to three (3) requisites for a legal and valid reclamation project, viz: (1) (2) (3) approval by the President; favorable recommendation of PEA; and undertaken by any of the following: a. b. executed c. authorized consultation by by PEA by any

person or entity pursuant to a contract it with PEA the National Government agency or entity under its charter to reclaim lands subject to with PEA

Without doubt, PEA under EO 525 was designated as the agency primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects. Primarily means mainly, principally, mostly, generally. Thus, not all reclamation projects fall under PEAs authority of supervision, integration, and coordination. The very charter of PEA, PD 1084, [61] does not mention that PEA has the exclusive and sole power and authority to reclaim lands of public domain. EO 525 even reveals the exceptionreclamation projects by a national government agency or entity authorized by its charter to reclaim land. One example is EO 405 which authorized the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to reclaim and develop submerged areas for port related purposes. Under its charter, PD 857, PPA has the power to reclaim, excavate, enclose or raise any of the lands vested in it. Thus, while PEA under PD 1084 has the power to reclaim land and under EO 525 is primarily responsible for integrating, directing and coordinating reclamation projects, such authority is NOT exclusive and such power to reclaim may be granted or delegated to another government agency or entity or may even be undertaken by the National Government itself, PEA being only an agency and a part of the National Government.

Let us apply the legal parameters of Sec. 1, EO 525 to the reclamation phase of SMDRP. After a scrutiny of the facts culled from the records, we find that the project met all the three (3) requirements, thus: 1. There was ample approval by the President of the Philippines; as a matter of fact, two Philippine Presidents approved the same, namely: Presidents Aquino and Ramos. President Aquino sanctioned the reclamation of both the SMDRP housing and commercial-industrial sites through MO 415 (s. 1992) which approved the SMDRP under Sec. 1 and directed NHA x x x to implement the Smokey Mountain Development Plan and Reclamation of the Area across R10 through a private sector joint venture scheme at the least cost to government under Section 3. For his part, then President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 39 (s. 1992) which expressly reserved the Smokey Mountain Area and the Reclamation Area for a housing project and related commercial/industrial development. Moreover, President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 465 (s. 1994) which authorized the increase of the Reclamation Area from 40 hectares of foreshore and submerged land of the Manila Bay to 79 hectares. It speaks of the reclamation of 400,000 square meters, more or less, of the foreshore and submerged lands of Manila Bay adjoining R-10 as an enabling component of the SMDRP. As a result of Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465, Special Patent No. 3591 covering 211,975 square meters of Smokey Mountain, Special Patent No. 3592 covering 401,485 square meters of reclaimed land, and Special Patent No. 3598 covering another 390,000 square meters of reclaimed land were issued by the DENR. Thus, the first requirement of presidential imprimatur on the SMDRP has been satisfied. 2. The requisite favorable endorsement of the reclamation phase was impliedly granted by PEA. President Aquino saw to it that there was coordination of the project with PEA by designating its general manager as member of the

EXECOM tasked to supervise the project implementation. The assignment was made in Sec. 2 of MO 415 which provides:
Section 2. An Executive Committee is hereby created to oversee the implementation of the Plan, chaired by the NCR-CORD, with the heads of the following agencies as members: The National Housing Authority, the City of Manila, the Department of Public Works and Highways,the Public Estates Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Development Bank of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied.)

The favorable recommendation by PEA of the JVA and subsequent amendments were incorporated as part of the recommendations of the EXECOM created under MO 415. While there was no specific recommendation on the SMDRP emanating solely from PEA, we find that the approbation of the Project and the land reclamation as an essential component by the EXECOM of which PEA is a member, and its submission of the SMDRP and the agreements on the Project to the President for approval amply met the second requirement of EO 525. 3. The third element was also presentthe reclamation was undertaken either by PEA or any person or entity under contract with PEA or by the National Government agency or entity authorized under its charter to reclaim lands subject to consultation with PEA. It cannot be disputed that the reclamation phase was not done by PEA or any person or entity under contract with PEA. However, the reclamation was implemented by the NHA, a national government agency whose authority to reclaim lands under consultation with PEA is derived from its charter PD 727 and other pertinent lawsRA 7279[62] and RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718. While the authority of NHA to reclaim lands is challenged by petitioner, we find that the NHA had more than enough authority to do so under existing laws. While PD 757, the charter of NHA, does not explicitly mention reclamation in any of the listed powers of the agency, we rule that the NHA has an implied power to reclaim land as this is vital or incidental to effectively, logically, and successfully implement an urban land reform and housing program enunciated in Sec. 9 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Basic in administrative law is the doctrine that a government agency or office has express and implied powers based on its charter and other pertinent statutes. Express powers are those powers granted, allocated, and delegated to a government agency or office by express provisions of law. On the other hand, implied powers are those that can be inferred or are implicit in the wordings of the law[63] or conferred by necessary or fair implication in the enabling act. [64] In Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Court clarified and stressed that when a general grant of power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication.[65] It was also explicated that when the statute does not specify the particular method to be followed or used by a government agency in the exercise of the power vested in it by law, said agency has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions.[66] The power to reclaim on the part of the NHA is implicit from PD 757, RA 7279, MO 415, RA 6957, and PD 3-A,[67] viz: 1. NHAs power to reclaim derived from PD 757 provisions:

a. Sec. 3 of PD 757 implies that reclamation may be resorted to in order to attain the goals of NHA:
Section 3. Progress and Objectives. The Authority shall have the following purposes and objectives: xxxx b) To undertake housing, development, resettlement or other activities as would enhance the provision of housing to every Filipino; To harness and promote private participation in housing ventures in terms of capital expenditures, land, expertise, financing and other facilities for the sustained growth of the housing industry. (Emphasis supplied.)

c)

Land reclamation is an integral part of the development of resources for some of the housing requirements of the NHA. Private participation in housing projects may also take the form of land reclamation. b. Sec. 5 of PD 757 serves as proof that the NHA, as successor of the Tondo Foreshore Development Authority (TFDA), has the power to reclaim, thus:
Section 5. Dissolution of Existing Housing Agencies. The People's Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC), the Presidential Assistant on Housing Resettlement Agency (PAHRA), the Tondo Foreshore Development Authority (TFDA), the Central Institute for the Training and Relocation of Urban Squatters (CITRUS), the Presidential Committee for Housing and Urban Resettlement (PRECHUR), Sapang Palay Development Committee, Inter-Agency Task Force to Undertake the Relocation of Families in Barrio Nabacaan, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental and all other existing government housing and resettlement agencies, task forces and ad-hoc committees, are hereby dissolved. Their powers and functions, balance of appropriations, records, assets, rights, and choses in action, are transferred to, vested in, and assumed by the Authority. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

PD 570 dated October 30, 1974 created the TFDA, which defined its objectives, powers, and functions. Sec. 2 provides:
Section 2. Objectives and Purposes. The Authority shall have the following purposes and objectives: a) To undertake all manner of activity, business or development projects for the establishment of harmonious, comprehensive, integrated and healthy living community in the Tondo Foreshoreland and its resettlement site; b) To undertake and promote the physical and socio-economic amelioration of the Tondo Foreshore residents in particular and the nation in general (Emphasis supplied.)

The powers and functions are contained in Sec. 3, to wit:

a) To develop and implement comprehensive and integrated urban renewal programs for the Tondo Foreshore and Dagat-dagatan lagoonand/or any other additional/alternative resettlement site and to formulate and enforce general and specific policies for its development which shall ensure reasonable degree of compliance with environmental standards.

b) To prescribe guidelines and standards for the reservation, conservation and utilization of public lands covering the Tondo Foreshore land and its resettlement sites; c) To construct, acquire, own, lease, operate and maintain infrastructure facilities, housing complex, sites and services; d) To determine, regulate and supervise the establishment and operation of housing, sites, services and commercial and industrial complexes and any other enterprises to be constructed or established within the Tondo Foreshore and its resettlement sites; e) To undertake and develop, by itself or through joint ventures with other public or private entities, all or any of the different phases of development of the Tondo Foreshore land and its resettlement sites; f) To acquire and own property, property-rights and interests, and encumber or otherwise dispose of the same as it may deem appropriate (Emphasis supplied.)

From the foregoing provisions, it is readily apparent that the TFDA has the explicit power to develop public lands covering the Tondo foreshore land and any other additional and alternative resettlement sites under letter b, Sec. 3 of PD 570. Since the additional and/or alternative sites adjacent to Tondo foreshore land cover foreshore and submerged areas, the reclamation of said areas is necessary in order to convert them into a comprehensive and integrated resettlement housing project for the slum dwellers and squatters of Tondo. Since the powers of TFDA were assumed by the NHA, then the NHA has the power to reclaim lands in the Tondo foreshore area which covers the 79-hectare land subject of Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 and Special Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598.

c. Sec. 6 of PD 757 delineates the functions and powers of the NHA which embrace the authority to reclaim land, thus:
Sec. 6. Powers and functions of the Authority .The Authority shall have the following powers and functions to be exercised by the Board in accordance with its established national human settlements plan prepared by the Human Settlements Commission: (a) Develop and implement the comprehensive integrated housing program provided for in Section hereof; xxxx (c) Prescribe guidelines and standards for the reservation, conservation and utilization of public lands identified for housing and resettlement; xxxx (e) Develop and undertake housing development and/or resettlement projects through joint ventures or other arrangements with public and private entities; xxxx (k) Enter into contracts whenever necessary under such terms and conditions as it may deem proper and reasonable; (l) Acquire property rights and interests and encumber or otherwise dispose the same as it may deem appropriate; xxxx (s) Perform such other acts not inconsistent with this Decree, as may be necessary to effect the policies and objectives herein declared. (Emphasis supplied.) and

The NHAs authority to reclaim land can be inferred from the aforequoted provisions. It can make use of public lands under letter (c) of Sec. 6 which includes reclaimed land as site for its comprehensive and integrated housing

projects under letter (a) which can be undertaken through joint ventures with private entities under letter (e). Taken together with letter (s) which authorizes NHA to perform such other activities necessary to effect the policies and objectives of PD 757, it is safe to conclude that the NHAs power to reclaim lands is a power that is implied from the exercise of its explicit powers under Sec. 6 in order to effectively accomplish its policies and objectives under Sec. 3 of its charter. Thus, the reclamation of land is an indispensable component for the development and construction of the SMDRP housing facilities. 2. NHAs implied power to reclaim land is enhanced by RA 7279.

PD 757 identifies NHAs mandate to [d]evelop and undertake housing development and/or resettlement projects through joint ventures or other arrangements with public and private entities. The power of the NHA to undertake reclamation of land can be inferred from Secs. 12 and 29 of RA 7279, which provide:

Section 12. Disposition of Lands for Socialized Housing.The National Housing Authority, with respect to lands belonging to the National Government, and the local government units with respect to other lands within their respective localities, shall coordinate with each other to formulate and make available various alternative schemes for the disposition of lands to the beneficiaries of the Program . These schemes shall not be limited to those involving transfer of ownership in fee simple but shall include lease, with option to purchase, usufruct or such other variations as the local government units or the National Housing Authority may deem most expedient in carrying out the purposes of this Act. xxxx Section 29. Resettlement.With two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, the local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other

public places as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds. The local government unit, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall provide relocation or resettlement sites with basic services and facilities and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the affected families. (Emphasis supplied.)

Lands belonging to the National Government include foreshore and submerged lands which can be reclaimed to undertake housing development and resettlement projects. 3. MO 415 explains the undertaking of the NHA in SMDRP:
WHEREAS, Memorandum Order No. 161-A mandated the National Housing Authority to conduct feasibility studies and develop low-cost housing projects at the dumpsites of Metro Manila ; WHEREAS, the National Housing Authority has presented a viable Conceptual Plan to convert the Smokey Mountain dumpsite into a habitable housing project inclusive of the reclamation area across R10 as enabling component of the Project; WHEREAS, the said Plan requires the coordinated and synchronized efforts of the City of Manila and other government agencies and instrumentalities to ensure effective and efficient implementation; WHEREAS, the government encourages private sector initiative in the implementation of its projects. (Emphasis supplied.)

Proceeding from these whereas clauses, it is unequivocal that reclamation of land in the Smokey Mountain area is an essential and vital power of the NHA to effectively implement its avowed goal of developing low-cost housing units at the SmokeyMountain dumpsites. The interpretation made by no less than the

President of the Philippines as Chief of the Executive Branch, of which the NHA is a part, must necessarily command respect and much weight and credit. 4. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718the BOT Lawserves as an exception to PD 1084 and EO 525. Based on the provisions of the BOT Law and Implementing Rules and Regulations, it is unequivocal that all government infrastructure agencies like the NHA can undertake infrastructure or development projects using the contractual arrangements prescribed by the law, and land reclamation is one of the projects that can be resorted to in the BOT project implementation under the February 10, 1992 Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 8th Congress. From the foregoing considerations, we find that the NHA has ample implied authority to undertake reclamation projects. Even without an implied power to reclaim lands under NHAs charter, we rule that the authority granted to NHA, a national government agency, by the President under PD 3-A reinforced by EO 525 is more than sufficient statutory basis for the reclamation of lands under the SMDRP. PD 3-A is a law issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos under his martial law powers on September 23, 1972. It provided that [t]he provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the reclamation of areas, underwater, whether foreshore or inland, shall be limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under the proper contract. It repealed, in effect, RA 1899 which previously delegated the right to reclaim lands to municipalities and chartered cities and revested it to the National Government. [68] Under PD 3-A, national government can only mean the Executive Branch headed by the President. It cannot refer to Congress as it was dissolved and abolished at the time of the issuance of PD 3-A on September 23, 1972. Moreover, the Executive Branch is the only implementing arm in the government with the equipment, manpower, expertise, and capability by the very nature of its assigned powers and functions to undertake reclamation projects. Thus, under PD 3-A, the Executive Branch through the President can implement reclamation of lands through any of its departments, agencies, or offices.

Subsequently, on February 4, 1977, President Marcos issued PD 1084 creating the PEA, which was granted, among others, the power to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas by dredging, filling or other means or to acquire reclaimed lands. The PEAs power to reclaim is not however exclusive as can be gleaned from its charter, as the President retained his power under PD 3-A to designate another agency to reclaim lands. On February 14, 1979, EO 525 was issued. It granted PEA primary responsibility for integrating, directing, and coordinating reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government although other national government agencies can be designated by the President to reclaim lands in coordination with the PEA. Despite the issuance of EO 525, PD 3-A remained valid and subsisting. Thus, the National Government through the President still retained the power and control over all reclamation projects in the country. The power of the National Government through the President over reclamation of areas, that is, underwater whether foreshore or inland, was made clear in EO 543[69] which took effect on June 24, 2006. Under EO 543, PEA was renamed the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) and was granted the authority to approve reclamation projects, a power previously reposed in the President under EO 525. EO 543 reads:
Section 1. The power of the President to approve reclamation projects is hereby delegated to the Philippine Reclamation Authority [formerly PEA], through its governing board, subject to compliance with existing laws and rules and subject to the condition that reclamation contracts to be executed with any person or entity go through public bidding. Section 2. Nothing in the Order shall be construed as diminishing the Presidents authority to modify, amend or nullify PRAs action. Section 3. All executive issuances inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. (Emphasis supplied.)

Sec. 2 of EO 543 strengthened the power of control and supervision of the President over reclamation of lands as s/he can modify, amend, or nullify the action of PEA (now PRA). From the foregoing issuances, we conclude that the Presidents delegation to NHA, a national government agency, to reclaim lands under the SMDRP, is legal and valid, firmly anchored on PD 3-A buttressed by EO 525 notwithstanding the absence of any specific grant of power under its charter, PD 757. Second Issue: Whether respondents NHA and RBI were given the power and authority by DENR to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands Petitioner Chavez puts forth the view that even if the NHA and RBI were granted the authority to reclaim, they were not authorized to do so by the DENR. Again, reliance is made on our ruling in PEA where it was held that the DENRs authority is necessary in order for the government to validly reclaim foreshore and submerged lands. In PEA, we expounded in this manner:
As manager, conservator and overseer of the natural resources of the State, DENR exercises supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands. DENR also exercises exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain. Thus, DENR decides whether areas under water, like foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay, should be reclaimed or not. This means that PEA needs authorization from DENR before PEA can undertake reclamation projects in Manila Bay, or in any part of the country. DENR also exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of all lands of the public domain. Hence, DENR decides whether reclaimed lands of PEA should be classified as alienable under Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141. Once DENR decides that the reclaimed lands should be so classified, it then recommends to the President the issuance of a proclamation classifying the lands as alienable or disposable lands

of the public domain open to disposition. We note that then DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. countersigned Special Patent No. 3517 in compliance with the Revised Administrative Code and Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141. In short, DENR is vested with the power to authorize the reclamation of areas under water, while PEA is vested with the power to undertake the physical reclamation of areas under water, whether directly or through private contractors. DENR is also empowered to classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands subject to the approval of the President. On the other hand, PEA is tasked to develop, sell or lease the reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain.[70]

Despite our finding that PEA is not a precedent to the case at bar, we find after all that under existing laws, the NHA is still required to procure DENRs authorization before a reclamation project in Manila Bay or in any part of the Philippines can be undertaken. The requirement applies to PEA, NHA, or any other government agency or office granted with such power under the law. Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission, we nevertheless find petitioners position bereft of merit. The DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim in the Smokey Mountain Project for the following reasons: 1. Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. The President is assigned the task of seeing to it that all laws are faithfully executed. Control, in administrative law, means the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[71] As such, the President can exercise executive power motu proprio and can supplant the act or decision of a subordinate with the Presidents own. The DENR is a department in the executive branch under the President, and it is only an alter

ego of the latter. Ordinarily the proposed action and the staff work are initially done by a department like the DENR and then submitted to the President for approval. However, there is nothing infirm or unconstitutional if the President decides on the implementation of a certain project or activity and requires said department to implement it. Such is a presidential prerogative as long as it involves the department or office authorized by law to supervise or execute the Project. Thus, as in this case, when the President approved and ordered the development of a housing project with the corresponding reclamation work, making DENR a member of the committee tasked to implement the project, the required authorization from the DENR to reclaim land can be deemed satisfied. It cannot be disputed that the ultimate power over alienable and disposable public lands is reposed in the President of the Philippines and not the DENR Secretary. To still require a DENR authorization on the Smokey Mountain when the President has already authorized and ordered the implementation of the Project would be a derogation of the powers of the President as the head of the executive branch. Otherwise, any department head can defy or oppose the implementation of a project approved by the head of the executive branch, which is patently illegal and unconstitutional. In Chavez v. Romulo, we stated that when a statute imposes a specific duty on the executive department, the President may act directly or order the said department to undertake an activity, thus:
[A]t the apex of the entire executive officialdom is the President. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution specifies [her] power as Chief executive departments, bureaus and offices. [She] shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. As Chief Executive, President Arroyo holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government. She lays down policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement them. In short, she has the power of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty x x x. Such act is well within the prerogative of her office (emphasis supplied).[72]

Moreover, the power to order the reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 grants authority to the President to reserve lands of public domain for settlement for any specific purpose, thus:
Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government.(1) The President shall have the power toreserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain , the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation. (Emphasis supplied.)

President Aquino reserved the area of the Smokey Mountain dumpsite for settlement and issued MO 415 authorizing the implementation of the Smokey Mountain Development Project plus the reclamation of the area across R-10. Then President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 39 covering the 21-hectare dumpsite and the 40-hectare commercial/industrial area, and Proclamation No. 465 and MO 415 increasing the area of foreshore and submerged lands of Manila Bay to be reclaimed from 40 to 79 hectares. Having supervision and control over the DENR, both Presidents directly assumed and exercised the power granted by the Revised Administrative Code to the DENR Secretary to authorize the NHA to reclaim said lands. What can be done indirectly by the DENR can be done directly by the President. It would be absurd if the power of the President cannot be exercised simply because the head of a department in the executive branch has not acted favorably on a project already approved by the President. If such arrangement is allowed then the department head will become more powerful than the President. 2. Under Sec. 2 of MO 415, the DENR is one of the members of the EXECOM chaired by the NCR-CORD to oversee the implementation of the Project. The EXECOM was the one which recommended approval of the project plan and the joint venture agreements. Clearly, the DENR retained its power of supervision and control over the laws affected by the Project since it was tasked to facilitate the titling of the Smokey Mountain and of the area to be reclaimed,

which shows that it had tacitly given its authority to the NHA to undertake the reclamation. 3. Former DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala issued Special Patents Nos. 3591 and 3592 while then Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued Special Patent No. 3598 that embraced the areas covered by the reclamation. These patents conveyed the lands to be reclaimed to the NHA and granted to said agency the administration and disposition of said lands for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development for mix land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port related activities. Such grant of authority to administer and dispose of lands of public domain under the SMDRP is of course subject to the powers of the EXECOM of SMDRP, of which the DENR is a member. 4. The issuance of ECCs by the DENR for SMDRP is but an exercise of its power of supervision and control over the lands of public domain covered by the Project. Based on these reasons, it is clear that the DENR, through its acts and issuances, has ratified and confirmed the reclamation of the subject lands for the purposes laid down in Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465. Third Issue: Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands considered as inalienable and outside the commerce of man Petitioner postulates that respondent RBI cannot acquire the reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas as these are inalienable public lands beyond the commerce of man based on Art. 1409 of the Civil Code which provides:
Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;

xxxx (7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived.

Secs. 2 and 3, Art. XII of the Constitution declare that all natural resources are owned by the State and they cannot be alienated except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain. One of the States natural resources are lands of public domain which include reclaimed lands. Petitioner contends that for these reclaimed lands to be alienable, there must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable and open to disposition or concession. Absent such law or proclamation, the reclaimed lands cannot be the enabling component or consideration to be paid to RBI as these are beyond the commerce of man. We are not convinced of petitioners postulation. The reclaimed lands across R-10 were classified alienable and disposable lands of public domain of the State for the following reasons, viz: First, there were three (3) presidential proclamations classifying the reclaimed lands across R-10 as alienable or disposable hence open to disposition or concession, to wit: (1) MO 415 issued by President Aquino, of which Sec. 4 states that [t]he land covered by the Smokey Mountain Dumpsite is hereby conveyed to the National Housing Authority as well as the area to be reclaimed across R-10. The directive to transfer the lands once reclaimed to the NHA implicitly carries with it the declaration that said lands are alienable and disposable. Otherwise, the NHA cannot effectively use them in its housing and resettlement project.

(2) Proclamation No. 39 issued by then President Ramos by which the reclaimed lands were conveyed to NHA for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development into a mixed land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port-related activities. Said directive carries with it the pronouncement that said lands have been transformed to alienable and disposable lands. Otherwise, there is no legal way to convey it to the beneficiaries. (3) Proclamation No. 465 likewise issued by President Ramos enlarged the reclaimed area to 79 hectares to be developed and disposed of in the implementation of the SMDRP. The authority put into the hands of the NHA to dispose of the reclaimed lands tacitly sustains the conversion to alienable and disposable lands. Secondly, Special Patents Nos. 3591, 3592, and 3598 issued by the DENR anchored on Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 issued by President Ramos, without doubt, classified the reclaimed areas as alienable and disposable. Admittedly, it cannot be said that MO 415, Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 are explicit declarations that the lands to be reclaimed are classified as alienable and disposable. We find however that such conclusion is derived and implicit from the authority given to the NHA to transfer the reclaimed lands to qualified beneficiaries. The query is, when did the declaration take effect? It did so only after the special patents covering the reclaimed areas were issued. It is only on such date that the reclaimed lands became alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. This is in line with the ruling in PEA where said issue was clarified and stressed:
PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquinos actual issuance of a special patent covering the Freedom Islands, is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying the Freedom Islands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1085 and President Aquinos issuance of a land

patent also constitute a declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. The Freedom Islands are thus alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition or concession to qualified parties.[73] (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, MO 415 and Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 cumulatively and jointly taken together with Special Patent Nos. 3591, 3592, and 3598 more than satisfy the requirement in PEA that [t]here must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession (emphasis supplied).[74] Apropos the requisite law categorizing reclaimed land as alienable or disposable, we find that RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 provides ample authority for the classification of reclaimed land in the SMDRP for the repayment scheme of the BOT project as alienable and disposable lands of public domain. Sec. 6 of RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 provides:
For the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of any infrastructure projects undertaken through the build-operate-and transfer arrangement or any of its variations pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the project proponent x x x may likewise be repaid in the form of a share in the revenue of the project or other non-monetary payments, such as, but not limited to, the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional requirements with respect to the ownership of the land. (Emphasis supplied.)

While RA 6957 as modified by RA 7718 does not expressly declare that the reclaimed lands that shall serve as payment to the project proponent have become alienable and disposable lands and opened for disposition; nonetheless, this conclusion is necessarily implied, for how else can the land be used as the enabling component for the Project if such classification is not deemed made? It may be argued that the grant of authority to sell public lands, pursuant to PEA, does not convert alienable lands of public domain into private or patrimonial lands. We ruled in PEA that alienable lands of public domain must

be transferred to qualified private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands (emphasis supplied).[75] To lands reclaimed by PEA or through a contract with a private person or entity, such reclaimed lands still remain alienable lands of public domain which can be transferred only to Filipino citizens but not to a private corporation. This is because PEA under PD 1084 and EO 525 is tasked to hold and dispose of alienable lands of public domain and it is only when it is transferred to Filipino citizens that it becomes patrimonial property. On the other hand, the NHA is a government agency not tasked to dispose of public lands under its charterThe Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The NHA is an end-user agency authorized by law to administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. The moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the special patents are transferred to the NHA by the Register of Deeds, they are automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations, 60% of which are owned by Filipinos. The reason is obvious: if the reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial land once transferred to NHA, then it would be useless to transfer it to the NHA since it cannot legally transfer or alienate lands of public domain. More importantly, it cannot attain its avowed purposes and goals since it can only transfer patrimonial lands to qualified beneficiaries and prospective buyers to raise funds for the SMDRP. From the foregoing considerations, we find that the 79-hectare reclaimed land has been declared alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and in the hands of NHA, it has been reclassified as patrimonial property. Petitioner, however, contends that the reclaimed lands were inexistent prior to the three (3) Presidential Acts (MO 415 and Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465) and hence, the declaration that such areas are alienable and disposable land of the public domain, citing PEA, has no legal basis. Petitioners contention is not well-taken. Petitioners sole reliance on Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 without taking into consideration the special patents issued by the DENR demonstrates the inherent weakness of his proposition. As was ruled in PEA cited by petitioner himself, PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquinos actual issuance of a

special patent covering the Freedom Islands is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying the Freedom islands as alienable or disposable lands of public domain. In a similar vein, the combined and collective effect of Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 with Special Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598 is tantamount to and can be considered to be an official declaration that the reclaimed lots are alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. The reclaimed lands covered by Special Patents Nos. 3591, 3592, and 3598, which evidence transfer of ownership of reclaimed lands to the NHA, are official acts of the DENR Secretary in the exercise of his power of supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands and his exclusive jurisdiction over the management and disposition of all lands of public domain under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Special Patent No. 3592 speaks of the transfer of Lots 1 and 2, and RI-003901-000012-D with an area of 401,485 square meters based on the survey and technical description approved by the Bureau of Lands. Lastly, Special Patent No. 3598 was issued in favor of the NHA transferring to said agency a tract of land described in Plan RL-00-000013 with an area of 390,000 square meters based on the survey and technical descriptions approved by the Bureau of Lands. The conduct of the survey, the preparation of the survey plan, the computation of the technical description, and the processing and preparation of the special patent are matters within the technical area of expertise of administrative agencies like the DENR and the Land Management Bureau and are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality.[76] Preparation of special patents calls for technical examination and a specialized review of calculations and specific details which the courts are ill-equipped to undertake; hence, the latter defer to the administrative agency which is trained and knowledgeable on such matters.[77] Subsequently, the special patents in the name of the NHA were submitted to the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila for registration, and corresponding certificates of titles over the reclaimed lots were issued based on said special patents. The issuance of certificates of titles in NHAs name automatically converts the reclaimed lands to patrimonial properties of the NHA. Otherwise, the lots would not be of use to the NHAs housing projects or as payment to the BOT

contractor as the enabling component of the BOT contract. The laws of the land have to be applied and interpreted depending on the changing conditions and times. Tempora mutantur et legis mutantur in illis (time changes and laws change with it). One such law that should be treated differently is the BOT Law (RA 6957) which brought about a novel way of implementing government contracts by allowing reclaimed land as part or full payment to the contractor of a government project to satisfy the huge financial requirements of the undertaking. The NHA holds the lands covered by Special Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598 solely for the purpose of the SMDRP undertaken by authority of the BOT Law and for disposition in accordance with said special law. The lands become alienable and disposable lands of public domain upon issuance of the special patents and become patrimonial properties of the Government from the time the titles are issued to the NHA. As early as 1999, this Court in Baguio v. Republic laid down the jurisprudence that:
It is true that, once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered by them ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance of such patent. [78]

The doctrine was reiterated in Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alijaga, Sr. , Heirs of Carlos Alcaraz v. Republic,[80] and the more recent case of Doris Chiongbian-Oliva v. Republic of the Philippines.[81] Thus, the 79-hectare reclaimed land became patrimonial property after the issuance of certificates of titles to the NHA based on Special Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598.
[79]

One last point. The ruling in PEA cannot even be applied retroactively to the lots covered by Special Patents Nos. 3592 (40 hectare reclaimed land) and 3598 (39-hectare reclaimed land). The reclamation of the land under SMDRP was completed in August 1996 while the PEA decision was rendered on July 9, 2002. In the meantime, subdivided lots forming parts of the reclaimed land were already sold to private corporations for value and separate titles issued to the buyers. The Project was terminated through a Memorandum of Agreement signed

on August 27, 2003. The PEA decision became final through the November 11, 2003Resolution. It is a settled precept that decisions of the Supreme Court can only be applied prospectively as they may prejudice vested rights if applied retroactively. In Benzonan v. Court of Appeals, the Court trenchantly elucidated the prospective application of its decisions based on considerations of equity and fair play, thus: At that time, the prevailing jurisprudence interpreting section 119 of R.A. 141 as amended was that enunciated in Monge and Tupas cited above. The petitioners Benzonan and respondent Pe and the DBP are bound by these decisions for pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws of the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. But while our decisions form part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.
The same consideration underlies our rulings giving only prospective effect to decisions enunciating new doctrines. Thus, we emphasized in People v. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607 [1974] x x x when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.
[82]

Fourth Issue: Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed lands when there was no declaration that said lands are no longer needed for public use Petitioner Chavez avers that despite the declaration that the reclaimed areas are alienable lands of the public domain, still, the reclamation is flawed for there was never any declaration that said lands are no longer needed for public use.

We are not moved by petitioners submission. Even if it is conceded that there was no explicit declaration that the lands are no longer needed for public use or public service, there was however an implicit executive declaration that the reclaimed areas R-10 are not necessary anymore for public use or public service when President Aquino through MO 415 conveyed the same to the NHA partly for housing project and related commercial/industrial development intended for disposition to and enjoyment of certain beneficiaries and not the public in general and partly as enabling component to finance the project. President Ramos, in issuing Proclamation No. 39, declared, though indirectly, that the reclaimed lands of the Smokey Mountain project are no longer required for public use or service, thus:
These parcels of land of public domain are hereby placed under the administration and disposition of the National Housing Authority to develop, subdivide and dispose to qualified beneficiaries , as well as its development for mix land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port related activities. (Emphasis supplied.)

While numerical count of the persons to be benefited is not the determinant whether the property is to be devoted to public use, the declaration in Proclamation No. 39 undeniably identifies only particular individuals as beneficiaries to whom the reclaimed lands can be sold, namelythe Smokey Mountain dwellers. The rest of the Filipinos are not qualified; hence, said lands are no longer essential for the use of the public in general. In addition, President Ramos issued on August 31, 1994 Proclamation No. 465 increasing the area to be reclaimed from forty (40) hectares to seventy-nine (79) hectares, elucidating that said lands are undoubtedly set aside for the beneficiaries of SMDRP and not the publicdeclaring the power of NHA to dispose of land to be reclaimed, thus: The authority to administer, develop, or dispose lands identified and reserved by this Proclamation and Proclamation No.

39 (s.1992), in accordance with the SMDRP, as enhance, is vested with the NHA, subject to the provisions of existing laws. (Emphasis supplied.) MO 415 and Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 are declarations that proclaimed the non-use of the reclaimed areas for public use or service as the Project cannot be successfully implemented without the withdrawal of said lands from public use or service. Certainly, the devotion of the reclaimed land to public use or service conflicts with the intended use of the Smokey Mountain areas for housing and employment of the Smokey Mountain scavengers and for financing the Project because the latter cannot be accomplished without abandoning the public use of the subject land. Without doubt, the presidential proclamations on SMDRP together with the issuance of the special patents had effectively removed the reclaimed lands from public use. More decisive and not in so many words is the ruling in PEA which we earlier cited, that PD No. 1085 and President Aquinos issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. Consequently, we ruled in that case that the reclaimed lands are open to disposition or concession to qualified parties.[83] In a similar vein, presidential Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 jointly with the special patents have classified the reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable and open to disposition or concession as they would be devoted to units for Smokey Mountainbeneficiaries. Hence, said lands are no longer intended for public use or service and shall form part of the patrimonial properties of the State under Art. 422 of the Civil Code. [84] As discussed a priori, the lands were classified as patrimonial properties of the NHA ready for disposition when the titles were registered in its name by the Register of Deeds. Moreover, reclaimed lands that are made the enabling components of a BOT infrastructure project are necessarily reclassified as alienable and disposable lands under the BOT Law; otherwise, absurd and illogical consequences would naturally result. Undoubtedly, the BOT contract will not be accepted by the BOT contractor since there will be no consideration for its contractual obligations. Since reclaimed land will be conveyed to the contractor pursuant to the BOT Law, then there is an

implied declaration that such land is no longer intended for public use or public service and, hence, considered patrimonial property of the State. Fifth Issue: Whether there is a law authorizing sale of reclaimed lands

Petitioner next claims that RBI cannot acquire the reclaimed lands because there was no law authorizing their sale. He argues that unlike PEA, no legislative authority was granted to the NHA to sell reclaimed land. This position is misplaced. Petitioner relies on Sec. 60 of Commonwealth Act (CA) 141 to support his view that the NHA is not empowered by any law to sell reclaimed land, thus:
Section 60. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold, as the case may be, to any person, corporation or association authorized to purchase or lease public lands for agricultural purposes. The area of the land so leased or sold shall be such as shall, in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, be reasonably necessary for the purposes for which such sale or lease if requested and shall in no case exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares: Provided, however, That this limitation shall not apply to grants, donations, transfers, made to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government for the purposes deemed by said entities conducive to the public interest; but the land so granted donated or transferred to a province, municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress; Provided, further, That any person, corporation, association or partnership disqualified from purchasing public land for agricultural purposes under the provisions of this Act, may lease land included under this title suitable for industrial or residential purposes, but the lease granted shall only be valid while such land is used for the purposes referred to. (Emphasis supplied.)

Reliance on said provision is incorrect as the same applies only to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government. The NHA is not a government unit but a government corporation performing governmental and proprietary functions. In addition, PD 757 is clear that the NHA is empowered by law to transfer properties acquired by it under the law to other parties, thus:
Section 6. Powers and functions of the Authority . The Authority shall have the following powers and functions to be exercised by the Boards in accordance with the established national human settlements plan prepared by the Human Settlements Commission: xxxx (k) Enter into contracts whenever necessary under such terms and conditions as it may deem proper and reasonable; (l) Acquire property rights and interests, and encumber or otherwise dispose the same as it may deem appropriate (Emphasis supplied.)

Letter (l) is emphatic that the NHA can acquire property rights and interests and encumber or otherwise dispose of them as it may deem appropriate. The transfer of the reclaimed lands by the National Government to the NHA for housing, commercial, and industrial purposes transformed them into patrimonial lands which are of course owned by the State in its private or proprietary capacity. Perforce, the NHA can sell the reclaimed lands to any Filipino citizen or qualified corporation.

Sixth Issue: Whether the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI was done by public bidding

Petitioner also contends that there was no public bidding but an awarding of ownership of said reclaimed lands to RBI. Public bidding, he says, is required under Secs. 63 and 67 of CA 141 which read:
Section 63. Whenever it is decided that lands covered by this chapter are not needed for public purposes, the Director of Lands shall ask the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce for authority to dispose of the same. Upon receipt of such authority, the Director of Lands shall give notice by public advertisement in the same manner as in the case of leases or sales of agricultural public land, that the Government will lease or sell, as the case may be, the lots or blocks specified in the advertisement, for the purpose stated in the notice and subject to the conditions specified in this chapter. xxxx Section 67. The lease or sale shall be made through oral bidding; and adjudication shall be made to the highest bidder. However, where an applicant has made improvements on the land by virtue of a permit issued to him by competent authority, the sale or lease shall be made by sealed bidding as prescribed in section twenty-six of this Act, the provisions of which shall be applied whenever applicable. If all or part of the lots remain unleased or unsold, the Director of Lands shall from time to time announce in the Official Gazette or in any other newspapers of general circulation, the lease of sale of those lots, if necessary.

He finds that the NHA and RBI violated Secs. 63 and 67 of CA 141, as the reclaimed lands were conveyed to RBI by negotiated contract and not by public bidding as required by law. This stand is devoid of merit. There is no doubt that respondent NHA conducted a public bidding of the right to become its joint venture partner in the Smokey Mountain Project. Notices or Invitations to Bid were published in the national dailies on January 23 and 26, 1992 and February 1, 14, 16, and 23, 1992. The bidding proper was done by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) on May 18, 1992. On August 31, 1992, the

Inter-Agency Techcom made up of the NHA, PEA, DPWH, PPA, DBP, and DENR opened the bids and evaluated them, resulting in the award of the contract to respondent RBI on October 7, 1992. On March 19, 1993, respondents NHA and RBI signed the JVA. On February 23, 1994, said JVA was amended and restated into the ARJVA. On August 11, 1994, the ARJVA was again amended. On September 7, 1994, the OP approved the ARJVA and the amendments to the ARJVA. From these factual settings, it cannot be gainsaid that there was full compliance with the laws and regulations governing public biddings involving a right, concession, or property of the government. Petitioner concedes that he does not question the public bidding on the right to be a joint venture partner of the NHA, but the absence of bidding in the sale of alienable and disposable lands of public domain pursuant to CA 141 as amended. Petitioners theory is incorrect. Secs. 63 and 67 of CA 141, as amended, are in point as they refer to government sale by the Director of Lands of alienable and disposable lands of public domain. This is not present in the case at bar. The lands reclaimed by and conveyed to the NHA are no longer lands of public domain. These lands became proprietary lands or patrimonial properties of the State upon transfer of the titles over the reclaimed lands to the NHA and hence outside the ambit of CA 141. The NHA can therefore legally transfer patrimonial land to RBI or to any other interested qualified buyer without any bidding conducted by the Director of Lands because the NHA, unlike PEA, is a government agency not tasked to sell lands of public domain. Hence, it can only hold patrimonial lands and can dispose of such lands by sale without need of public bidding. Petitioner likewise relies on Sec. 79 of PD 1445 which requires public bidding when government property has become unserviceable for any cause or is no longer needed. It appears from the Handbook on Property and Supply Management System, Chapter 6, that reclaimed lands which have become patrimonial properties of the State, whose titles are conveyed to government agencies like the NHA, which it will use for its projects or programs, are not within

the ambit of Sec. 79. We quote the determining factors in the Disposal of Unserviceable Property, thus:
Determining Factors in the Disposal of Unserviceable Property Property, which can no longer be repaired or reconditioned; Property whose maintenance costs of repair more than outweigh the benefits and services that will be derived from its continued use; Property that has become obsolete or outmoded because of changes in technology; Serviceable property that has been rendered unnecessary due to change in the agencys function or mandate; Unused supplies, materials and spare parts that were procured in excess of requirements; and Unused supplies and materials that [have] become dangerous to use because of long storage or use of which is determined to be hazardous.[85]

Reclaimed lands cannot be considered unserviceable properties. The reclaimed lands in question are very much needed by the NHA for the Smokey Mountain Project because without it, then the projects will not be successfully implemented. Since the reclaimed lands are not unserviceable properties and are very much needed by NHA, then Sec. 79 of PD 1445 does not apply. More importantly, Sec. 79 of PD 1445 cannot be applied to patrimonial properties like reclaimed lands transferred to a government agency like the NHA which has entered into a BOT contract with a private firm. The reason is obvious. If the patrimonial property will be subject to public bidding as the only way of disposing of said property, then Sec. 6 of RA 6957 on the repayment scheme is almost impossible or extremely difficult to implement considering the uncertainty of a winning bid during public auction. Moreover, the repayment scheme of a BOT contract may be in the form of non-monetary payment like the

grant of a portion or percentage of reclaimed land. Even if the BOT partner participates in the public bidding, there is no assurance that he will win the bid and therefore the payment in kind as agreed to by the parties cannot be performed or the winning bid prize might be below the estimated valuation of the land. The only way to harmonize Sec. 79 of PD 1445 with Sec. 6 of RA 6957 is to consider Sec. 79 of PD 1445 as inapplicable to BOT contracts involving patrimonial lands. The law does not intend anything impossible (lex non intendit aliquid impossibile). Seventh Issue: Whether RBI, being a private corporation, is barred by the Constitution to acquire lands of public domain Petitioner maintains that RBI, being a private corporation, is expressly prohibited by the 1987 Constitution from acquiring lands of public domain. Petitioners proposition has no legal mooring for the following reasons: 1. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that a contractor can be paid a portion as percentage of the reclaimed land subject to the constitutional requirement that only Filipino citizens or corporations with at least 60% Filipino equity can acquire the same. It cannot be denied that RBI is a private corporation, where Filipino citizens own at least 60% of the stocks. Thus, the transfer to RBI is valid and constitutional. 2. When Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 were issued, inalienable lands covered by said proclamations were converted to alienable and disposable lands of public domain. When the titles to the reclaimed lands were transferred to the NHA, said alienable and disposable lands of public domain were automatically classified as lands of the private domain or patrimonial properties of the State because the NHA is an agency NOT tasked to dispose of alienable or disposable lands of public domain. The only way it can transfer the reclaimed land in conjunction with its projects and to attain its goals is when it is automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State. Being patrimonial or private properties of the State, then it has the power to sell the same to any qualified personunder the Constitution, Filipino citizens as private corporations, 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizens like RBI.

3. The NHA is an end-user entity such that when alienable lands of public domain are transferred to said agency, they are automatically classified as patrimonial properties. The NHA is similarly situated as BCDA which was granted the authority to dispose of patrimonial lands of the government under RA 7227. The nature of the property holdings conveyed to BCDA is elucidated and stressed in the May 6, 2003 Resolution in Chavez v. PEA, thus:
BCDA is an entirely different government entity. BCDA is authorized by law to sell specific government lands that have long been declared by presidential proclamations as military reservations for use by the different services of the armed forces under the Department of National Defense. BCDAs mandate is specific and limited in area, while PEAs mandate is general and national. BCDA holds government lands that have been granted to end-user government entitiesthe military services of the armed forces. In contrast, under Executive Order No. 525, PEA holds the reclaimed public lands, not as an end-user entity, but as the government agency primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. x x x Well-settled is the doctrine that public land granted to an end-user government agency for a specific public use may subsequently be withdrawn by Congress from public use and declared patrimonial property to be sold to private parties. R.A. No. 7227 creating the BCDA is a law that declares specific military reservations no longer needed for defense or military purposes and reclassifies such lands as patrimonial property for sale to private parties. Government owned lands, as long as they are patrimonial property, can be sold to private parties, whether Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations. Thus, the so-called Friar Lands acquired by the government under Act No. 1120 are patrimonial property which even private corporations can acquire by purchase. Likewise, reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain if sold or transferred to a public or municipal corporation for a monetary consideration become patrimonial property in the hands of the public or municipal corporation. Once converted to patrimonial property, the land

may be sold by the public or municipal corporation to private parties, whether Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations. [86] (Emphasis supplied.)

The foregoing Resolution makes it clear that the SMDRP was a program adopted by the Government under Republic Act No. 6957 (An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector, and For Other Purposes), as amended by RA 7718, which is a special law similar to RA 7227. Moreover, since the implementation was assigned to the NHA, an end-user agency under PD 757 and RA 7279, the reclaimed lands registered under the NHA are automatically classified as patrimonial lands ready for disposition to qualified beneficiaries. The foregoing reasons likewise apply to the contention of petitioner that HCPTI, being a private corporation, is disqualified from being a transferee of public land. What was transferred to HCPTI is a 10-hectare lot which is already classified as patrimonial property in the hands of the NHA. HCPTI, being a qualified corporation under the 1987 Constitution, the transfer of the subject lot to it is valid and constitutional. Eighth Issue: Whether respondents can be compelled to disclose all information related to the SMDRP

Petitioner asserts his right to information on all documents such as contracts, reports, memoranda, and the like relative to SMDRP. Petitioner asserts that matters relative to the SMDRP have not been disclosed to the public like the current stage of the Project, the present financial capacity of RBI, the complete list of investors in the asset pool, the exact amount of investments in the asset pool and other similar important information regarding the Project. He prays that respondents be compelled to disclose all information regarding the SMDRP and furnish him with originals or at least certified true copies of all

relevant documents relating to the said project including, but not limited to, the original JVA, ARJVA, AARJVA, and the Asset Pool Agreement. This relief must be granted. The right of the Filipino people to information on matters of public concern is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, thus:
ARTICLE II xxxx SEC. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. ARTICLE III SEC. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

In Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., this Court explicated this way:

[A]n essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the peoples will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit. [87]

In PEA, this Court elucidated the rationale behind the right to information:
These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. If the government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to citizens, whatever citizens say, even if expressed without any restraint, will be speculative and amount to nothing. These twin provisions are also essential to hold public officials at all times x x x accountable to the people, for unless citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy.[88]

Sec. 28, Art. II compels the State and its agencies to fully disclose all of its transactions involving public interest. Thus, the government agencies, without need of demand from anyone, must bring into public view all the steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction and the contents of the perfected contract.[89] Such information must pertain to definite propositions of the government, meaning official recommendations or final positions reached on the different matters subject of negotiation. The government agency, however, need not disclose intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the exploratory stage. The limitation also covers privileged communication like information on military and diplomatic secrets; information affecting national security; information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused; information on foreign relations, intelligence, and other classified information. It is unfortunate, however, that after almost twenty (20) years from birth of the 1987 Constitution, there is still no enabling law that provides the mechanics for

the compulsory duty of government agencies to disclose information on government transactions. Hopefully, the desired enabling law will finally see the light of day if and when Congress decides to approve the proposed Freedom of Access to Information Act. In the meantime, it would suffice that government agencies post on their bulletin boards the documents incorporating the information on the steps and negotiations that produced the agreements and the agreements themselves, and if finances permit, to upload said information on their respective websites for easy access by interested parties. Without any law or regulation governing the right to disclose information, the NHA or any of the respondents cannot be faulted if they were not able to disclose information relative to the SMDRP to the public in general. The other aspect of the peoples right to know apart from the duty to disclose is the duty to allow access to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution. The gateway to information opens to the public the following: (1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions; and (3) government research data used as a basis for policy development. Thus, the duty to disclose information should be differentiated from the duty to permit access to information. There is no need to demand from the government agency disclosure of information as this is mandatory under the Constitution; failing that, legal remedies are available. On the other hand, the interested party must first request or even demand that he be allowed access to documents and papers in the particular agency. A request or demand is required; otherwise, the government office or agency will not know of the desire of the interested party to gain access to such papers and what papers are needed. The duty to disclose covers only transactions involving public interest, while the duty to allow access has a broader scope of information which embraces not only transactions involving public interest, but any matter contained in official communications and public documents of the government agency. We find that although petitioner did not make any demand on the NHA to allow access to information, we treat the petition as a written request or demand. We order the NHA to allow petitioner access to its official records,

documents, and papers relating to official acts, transactions, and decisions that are relevant to the said JVA and subsequent agreements relative to the SMDRP. Ninth Issue: Whether the operative fact doctrine applies to the instant petition Petitioner postulates that the operative fact doctrine is inapplicable to the present case because it is an equitable doctrine which could not be used to countenance an inequitable result that is contrary to its proper office. On the other hand, the petitioner Solicitor General argues that the existence of the various agreements implementing the SMDRP is an operative fact that can no longer be disturbed or simply ignored, citing Rieta v. People of the Philippines.
[90]

The argument of the Solicitor General is meritorious. The operative fact doctrine is embodied in De Agbayani v. Court of Appeals, wherein it is stated that a legislative or executive act, prior to its being declared as unconstitutional by the courts, is valid and must be complied with, thus:
As the new Civil Code puts it: When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution. It is understandable why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive.

Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. It may not however be sufficiently realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive

act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. In the language of an American Supreme Court decision : The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official. This language has been quoted with approval in a resolution in Araneta v. Hill and the decision in Manila Motor Co., Inc. v. Flores. An even more recent instance is the opinion of Justice Zaldivar speaking for the Court in Fernandez v. Cuerva and Co. [91] (Emphasis supplied.)

This doctrine was reiterated in the more recent case of City of Makati v. Civil Service Commission, wherein we ruled that:
Moreover, we certainly cannot nullify the City Governments order of suspension, as we have no reason to do so, much less retroactively apply such nullification to deprive private respondent of a compelling and valid reason for not filing the leave application. For as we have held, a void act though in law a mere scrap of paper nonetheless confers legitimacy upon past acts or omissions done in reliance thereof. Consequently, the existence of a statute or executive order prior to its being adjudged void is an operative fact to which legal consequences are attached. It would indeed be ghastly unfair to prevent private respondent from relying upon the order of suspension in lieu of a formal leave application.[92] (Emphasis supplied.)

The principle was further explicated in the case of Rieta v. People of the Philippines, thus:
In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank to wit: The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. x x x It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to [the determination of its invalidity], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects with respect to particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal, and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.

In the May 6, 2003 Resolution in Chavez v. PEA,[93] we ruled that De Agbayani[94] is not applicable to the case considering that the prevailing law did not authorize private corporations from owning land. The prevailing law at the time was the 1935 Constitution as no statute dealt with the same issue. In the instant case, RA 6957 was the prevailing law at the time that the joint venture agreement was signed. RA 6957, entitled An Act Authorizing The Financing, Construction, Operation And Maintenance Of Infrastructure Projects By The Private Sector And For Other Purposes, which was passed by Congress on July 24, 1989, allows repayment to the private contractor of reclaimed lands. [95] Such law was relied upon by respondents, along with the above-mentioned executive issuances in pushing through with the Project. The existence of such law and issuances is an operative fact to which legal consequences have

attached. This Court is constrained to give legal effect to the acts done in consonance with such executive and legislative acts; to do otherwise would work patent injustice on respondents. Further, in the May 6, 2003 Resolution in Chavez v. PEA, we ruled that in certain cases, the transfer of land, although illegal or unconstitutional, will not be invalidated on considerations of equity and social justice. However, in that case, we did not apply the same considering that PEA, respondent in said case, was not entitled to equity principles there being bad faith on its part, thus:
There are, moreover, special circumstances that disqualify Amari from invoking equity principles. Amari cannot claim good faith because even before Amari signed the Amended JVA on March 30, 1999, petitioner had already filed the instant case on April 27, 1998 questioning precisely the qualification of Amari to acquire the Freedom Islands. Even before the filing of this petition, two Senate Committees had already approved on September 16, 1997 Senate Committee Report No. 560. This Report concluded, after a wellpublicized investigation into PEAs sale of the Freedom Islands to Amari, that the Freedom Islands are inalienable lands of the public domain. Thus, Amari signed the Amended JVA knowing and assuming all the attendant risks, including the annulment of the Amended JVA. [96]

Such indicia of bad faith are not present in the instant case. When the ruling in PEA was rendered by this Court on July 9, 2002, the JVAs were all executed. Furthermore, when petitioner filed the instant case against respondents on August 5, 2004, the JVAs were already terminated by virtue of the MOA between the NHA and RBI. The respondents had no reason to think that their agreements were unconstitutional or even questionable, as in fact, the concurrent acts of the executive department lent validity to the implementation of the Project. The SMDRP agreements have produced vested rights in favor of the slum dwellers, the buyers of reclaimed land who were issued titles over said land, and the agencies and investors who made investments in the project or who bought SMPPCs. These properties and rights cannot be disturbed or questioned after the passage of around ten (10) years from the start of the SMDRP implementation.

Evidently, the operative fact principle has set in. The titles to the lands in the hands of the buyers can no longer be invalidated. The Courts Dispositions Based on the issues raised in this petition, we find that the March 19, 1993 JVA between NHA and RBI and the SMDRP embodied in the JVA, the subsequent amendments to the JVA and all other agreements signed and executed in relation to it, including, but not limited to, the September 26, 1994 Smokey Mountain Asset Pool Agreement and the agreement on Phase I of the Project as well as all other transactions which emanated from the Project, have been shown to be valid, legal, and constitutional. Phase II has been struck down by the Clean Air Act. With regard to the prayer for prohibition, enjoining respondents particularly respondent NHA from further implementing and/or enforcing the said Project and other agreements related to it, and from further deriving and/or enjoying any rights, privileges and interest from the Project, we find the same prayer meritless. Sec. 2 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition.When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

It has not been shown that the NHA exercised judicial or quasi-judicial functions in relation to the SMDRP and the agreements relative to it. Likewise, it has not been shown what ministerial functions the NHA has with regard to the SMDRP.

A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance. It is a duty which an officer performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his/her own judgment upon the propriety of the act done.[97] Whatever is left to be done in relation to the August 27, 2003 MOA, terminating the JVA and other related agreements, certainly does not involve ministerial functions of the NHA but instead requires exercise of judgment. In fact, Item No. 4 of the MOA terminating the JVAs provides for validation of the developers (RBIs) claims arising from the termination of the SMDRP through the various government agencies.[98] Such validation requires the exercise of discretion. In addition, prohibition does not lie against the NHA in view of petitioners failure to avail and exhaust all administrative remedies. Clear is the rule that prohibition is only available when there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. More importantly, prohibition does not lie to restrain an act which is already a fait accompli. The operative fact doctrine protecting vested rights bars the grant of the writ of prohibition to the case at bar. It should be remembered that petitioner was the Solicitor General at the time SMDRP was formulated and implemented. He had the opportunity to question the SMDRP and the agreements on it, but he did not. The moment to challenge the Project had passed. On the prayer for a writ of mandamus, petitioner asks the Court to compel respondents to disclose all documents and information relating to the project, including, but not limited to, any subsequent agreements with respect to the different phases of the Project, the revisions of the original plan, the additional works incurred on the Project, the current financial condition of respondent RBI, and the transactions made with respect to the project. We earlier ruled that petitioner will be allowed access to official records relative to the SMDRP. That would be adequate relief to satisfy petitioners right to the information gateway.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The prayer for a writ of prohibition is DENIED for lack of merit. The prayer for a writ of mandamus is GRANTED. Respondent NHA is ordered to allow access to petitioner to all public documents and official records relative to the SMDRPincluding, but not limited to, the March 19, 1993 JVA between the NHA and RBI and subsequent agreements related to the JVA, the revisions over the original plan, and the additional works incurred on and the transactions made with respect to the Project. No costs. SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and JOEL D. MUYCO, Director of Mines and Geosciences Bureau, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: The instant petition seeks a ruling from this Court on the validity of two Administrative Orders issued by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to carry out the provisions of certain Executive Orders promulgated by the President in the lawful exercise of legislative powers. Herein controversy was precipitated by the change introduced by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution on the system of exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources. No longer is the utilization of inalienable lands of public domain through "license, concession or lease" under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions 1 allowed under the 1987 Constitution. The adoption of the concept of jura regalia 2 that all natural resources are owned by the State embodied in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, as well as the recognition of the importance of the country's natural resources, not only for national economic development, but also for its security and national defense, 3 ushered in the adoption of the constitutional policy of "full control and supervision by the State" in the exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources. The options open to the State are through direct undertaking or by entering into co-production, joint venture; or production-sharing agreements, or by entering into agreement with foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration, development and utilization. Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides: Sec. 2. 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. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. 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 product-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 twentyfive 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. xxx xxx xxx The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either 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. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources . The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. (Emphasis supplied) Pursuant to the mandate of the above-quoted provision, legislative acts 4 were successively issued by the President in the exercise of her legislative power. 5 To implement said legislative acts, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in turn promulgated Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82, the validity and constitutionality of which are being challenged in this petition. On July 10, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her then legislative powers under Article II, Section 1 of the Provisional Constitution and Article XIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, promulgated Executive Order No. 211 prescribing the interim procedures in the processing and approval of applications for the exploration, development and utilization of minerals pursuant to the 1987 Constitution in order to ensure the continuity of mining operations and activities and to hasten the development of mineral resources. The pertinent provisions read as follows: Sec. 1. Existing mining permits, licenses, leases and other mining grants issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences, including existing operating agreements and mining service contracts, shall continue and remain in full force and effect, subject to the same terms and conditions as originally granted and/or approved. Sec. 2. Applications for the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources, including renewal applications for approval of operating agreements and mining service contracts, shall be accepted and processed and may be approved; concomitantly thereto, declarations of locations and all other kinds of mining applications shall be accepted and registered by the Bureau of Mines and GeoSciences. Sec. 3. The processing, evaluation and approval of all mining applications, declarations of locations, operating agreements and service contracts as provided for in Section 2 above, shall be governed by Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws and their implementing rules and regulations: Provided, however, that the privileges granted, as well as the terms and conditions thereof shall

be subject to any and all modifications or alterations which Congress may adopt pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. On July 25, 1987, President Aquino likewise promulgated Executive Order No. 279 authorizing the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, co-production, or production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources, and prescribing the guidelines for such agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial assistance by foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals. The pertinent provisions relevant to this petition are as follows: Sec. 1. The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretary") is hereby authorized to negotiate and enter into, for and in behalf of the Government, joint venture, co-production, or production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources with any Filipino citizens, or corporation or association at least sixty percent (60%) of whose capital is owned by Filipino citizens. Such joint venture, co-production, or production-sharing agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and shall include the minimum terms and conditions prescribed in Section 2 hereof. In the execution of a joint venture, co-production or production agreements, the contracting parties, including the Government, may consolidate two or more contiguous or geologically related mining claims or leases and consider them as one contract area for purposes of determining the subject of the joint venture, co-production, or productionsharing agreement. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 6. The Secretary shall promulgate such supplementary rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively implement the provisions of this Executive Order. Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws, and their implementing rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order, shall continue in force and effect. Pursuant to Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279, the DENR Secretary issued on June 23, 1989 DENR Administrative Order No. 57, series of 1989, captioned "Guidelines of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement under Executive Order No. 279." 6 Under the transitory provision of said DENR Administrative Order No. 57, embodied in its Article 9, all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, except small scale mining leases and those pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry resources covering an area of twenty (20) hectares or less, shall be converted into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines. On November 20, 1980, the Secretary of the DENR Administrative Order No. 82, series of 1990, laying down the "Procedural Guidelines on the Award of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) through Negotiation." 7 Section 3 of the aforementioned DENR Administrative Order No. 82 enumerates the persons or entities required to submit Letter of Intent (LOIs) and Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSAs) within two (2) years from the effectivity of DENR Administrative Order No. 57 or until July

17, 1991. Failure to do so within the prescribed period shall cause the abandonment of mining, quarry and sand and gravel claims. Section 3 of DENR Administrative Order No. 82 provides: Sec. 3. Submission of Letter of Intent (LOIs) and MPSAs). The following shall submit their LOIs and MPSAs within two (2) years from the effectivity of DENR A.O. 57 or until July 17, 1991. i. Declaration of Location (DOL) holders, mining lease applicants, exploration permitees, quarry applicants and other mining applicants whose mining/quarry applications have not been perfected prior to the effectivity of DENR Administrative Order No. 57. ii. All holders of DOL acquired after the effectivity of DENR A.O. No. 57. iii. Holders of mining leases or similar agreements which were granted after (the) effectivity of 1987 Constitution. Failure to submit letters of intent and MPSA applications/proposals within the prescribed period shall cause the abandonment of mining, quarry and sand and gravel claims. The issuance and the impeding implementation by the DENR of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 after their respective effectivity dates compelled the Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc. 8 to file the instant petition assailing their validity and constitutionality before this Court. In this petition for certiorari, petitioner Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc. mainly contends that respondent Secretary of DENR issued both Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 in excess of his rule-making power under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279. On the assumption that the questioned administrative orders do not conform with Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279, petitioner contends that both orders violate the non-impairment of contract provision under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution on the ground that Administrative Order No. 57 unduly pre-terminates existing mining agreements and automatically converts them into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from its effectivity date. On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 82 declares that failure to submit Letters of Intent and Mineral Production-Sharing Agreements within two (2) years from the date of effectivity of said guideline or on July 17, 1991 shall cause the abandonment of their mining, quarry and sand gravel permits. On July 2, 1991, the Court, acting on petitioner's urgent ex-parte petition for issuance of a restraining order/preliminary injunction, issued a Temporary Restraining Order, upon posting of a P500,000.00 bond, enjoining the enforcement and implementation of DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82, as amended, Series of 1989 and 1990, respectively. 9 On November 13, 1991, Continental Marble Corporation, 10 thru its President, Felipe A. David, sought to intervene11 in this case alleging that because of the temporary order issued by the Court , the DENR, Regional Office No. 3 in San Fernando, Pampanga refused to renew its Mines Temporary Permit after it expired on July 31, 1991. Claiming that its rights and interests are prejudicially affected by the implementation of DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82, it joined petitioner herein in seeking to annul Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 and prayed that the DENR, Regional Office No. 3 be ordered to issue a Mines Temporary Permit in its favor to enable it to operate during the pendency of the suit.

Public respondents were acquired to comment on the Continental Marble Corporation's petition for intervention in the resolution of November 28, 1991. 12 Now to the main petition. If its argued that Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 have the effect of repealing or abrogating existing mining laws 13 which are not inconsistent with the provisions of Executive Order No. 279. Invoking Section 7 of said Executive Order No. 279, 14 petitioner maintains that respondent DENR Secretary cannot provide guidelines such as Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 which are inconsistent with the provisions of Executive Order No. 279 because both Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279 merely reiterated the acceptance and registration of declarations of location and all other kinds of mining applications by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, until Congress opts to modify or alter the same. In other words, petitioner would have us rule that DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 issued by the DENR Secretary in the exercise of his rule-making power are tainted with invalidity inasmuch as both contravene or subvert the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279 or embrace matters not covered, nor intended to be covered, by the aforesaid laws. We disagree. We reiterate the principle that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment. The principle was enunciated as early as 1908 in the case of United States v. Barrias. 15 The scope of the exercise of such rule-making power was clearly expressed in the case of United States v. Tupasi Molina, 16decided in 1914, thus: "Of course, the regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid." Recently, the case of People v. Maceren 17 gave a brief delienation of the scope of said power of administrative officials: Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provision. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended (U.S. v. Tupasi Molina, supra). An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress (Santos vs. Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419, 422; Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators, L-25619, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 585; Manuel vs. General Auditing Office, L-28952, December 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 660; Deluao v. Casteel, L-21906, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 350). The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned (University of Santo Tomas v. Board of Tax Appeals, 93 Phil. 376, 382, citing 12 C.J. 845-46. As to invalid regulations, see Collector of Internal Revenue v. Villaflor, 69 Phil. 319; Wise & Co. v. Meer, 78 Phil. 655, 676; Del Mar v. Phil. Veterans Administration, L-27299, June 27, 1973, 51 SCRA 340, 349).

xxx xxx xxx . . . The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency (Davis, Administrative Law, p. 194, 197, cited in Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil. 555, 558). In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic prevails because said rule or regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law (People v. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091). Considering that administrative rules draw life from the statute which they seek to implement, it is obvious that the spring cannot rise higher than its source. We now examine petitioner's argument that DENR Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 contravene Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279 as both operate to repeal or abrogate Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other mining laws allegedly acknowledged as the principal law under Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279. Petitioner's insistence on the application of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, as the governing law on the acceptance and approval of declarations of location and all other kinds of applications for the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, is erroneous. Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pertains to the old system of exploration, development and utilization of natural resources through "license, concession or lease" which, however, has been disallowed by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. By virtue of the said constitutional mandate and its implementing law, Executive Order No. 279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211, the provisions dealing on "license, concession or lease" of mineral resources under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other existing mining laws are deemed repealed and, therefore, ceased to operate as the governing law. In other words, in all other areas of administration and management of mineral lands, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other existing mining laws, still govern. Section 7 of Executive Order No. 279 provides, thus: Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws, and their implementing rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order, shall continue in force and effect. Specifically, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, on lease of mining claims under Chapter VIII, quarry permits on privately-owned lands of quarry license on public lands under Chapter XIII and other related provisions on lease, license and permits are not only inconsistent with the raison d'etre for which Executive Order No. 279 was passed, but contravene the express mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. It force and effectivity is thus foreclosed. Upon the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987, 18 the State assumed a more dynamic role in the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources of the country. Article XII, Section 2 of the said Charter explicitly ordains that the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. Consonant therewith, the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources may be undertaken by means of direct act of the State, or it may opt to enter into co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements, or it may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either 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.

Given these considerations, there is no clear showing that respondent DENR Secretary has transcended the bounds demarcated by Executive Order No. 279 for the exercise of his rule-making power tantamount to a grave abuse of discretion. Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279 specifically authorizes said official to promulgate such supplementary rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively implement the provisions thereof. Moreover, the subject sought to be governed and regulated by the questioned orders is germane to the objects and purposes of Executive Order No. 279 specifically issued to carry out the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner likewise maintains that Administrative Order No. 57, in relation to Administrative Order No. 82, impairs vested rights as to violate the non-impairment of contract doctrine guaranteed under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution because Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57 unduly pre-terminates and automatically converts mining leases and other mining agreements into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from effectivity of said guideline, while Section 3 of Administrative Order No. 82, declares that failure to submit Letters of Intent (LOIs) and MPSAs within two (2) years from the effectivity of Administrative Order No. 57 or until July 17, 1991 shall cause the abandonment of mining, quarry, and sand gravel permits. In Support of the above contention, it is argued by petitioner that Executive Order No. 279 does not contemplate automatic conversion of mining lease agreements into mining production-sharing agreement as provided under Article 9, Administrative Order No. 57 and/or the consequent abandonment of mining claims for failure to submit LOIs and MPSAs under Section 3, Administrative Order No. 82 because Section 1 of said Executive Order No. 279 empowers the DENR Secretary to negotiate and enter into voluntary agreements which must set forth the minimum terms and conditions provided under Section 2 thereof. Moreover, petitioner contends that the power to regulate and enter into mining agreements does not include the power to preterminate existing mining lease agreements. To begin with, we dispel the impression created by petitioner's argument that the questioned administrative orders unduly preterminate existing mining leases in general. A distinction which spells a real difference must be drawn. Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution does not apply retroactively to "license, concession or lease" granted by the government under the 1973 Constitution or before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987. The intent to apply prospectively said constitutional provision was stressed during the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, 19 thus: MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal, I notice that except for the [inalienable] lands of the public domain, all other natural resources cannot be alienated and in respect to [alienable] lands of the public domain, private corporations with the required ownership by Filipino citizens can only lease the same. Necessarily, insofar as other natural resources are concerned, it would only be the State which can exploit, develop, explore and utilize the same. However, the State may enter into a joint venture, co-production or productionsharing. Is that not correct? MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. MR. DAVIDE: Consequently, henceforth upon, the approval of this Constitution, no timber or forest concession, permits or authorization can be exclusively granted to any citizen of the Philippines nor to any corporation qualified to acquire lands of the public domain?

MR. VILLEGAS: Would Commissioner Monsod like to comment on that? I think his answer is "yes." MR. DAVIDE: So, what will happen now license or concessions earlier granted by the Philippine government to private corporations or to Filipino citizens? Would they be deemed repealed? MR. VILLEGAS: This is not applied retroactively. They will be respected. MR. DAVIDE: In effect, they will be deemed repealed? MR. VILLEGAS: No. (Emphasis supplied) During the transition period or after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987 until the first Congress under said Constitution was convened on July 27, 1987, two (2) successive laws, Executive Order Nos. 211 and 279, were promulgated to govern the processing and approval of applications for the exploration, development and utilization of minerals. To carry out the purposes of said laws, the questioned Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82, now being assailed, were issued by the DENR Secretary. Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57 provides: ARTICLE 9 TRANSITORY PROVISION 9.1. All existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, except small scale mining leases and those pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry resources covering an area of twenty (20) hectares or less shall be subject to these guidelines. All such leases or agreements shall be converted into production sharing agreement within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines. However, any minimum firm which has established mining rights under Presidential Decree 463 or other laws may avail of the provisions of EO 279 by following the procedures set down in this document. It is clear from the aforestated provision that Administrative Order No. 57 applies only to all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. It bears mention that under the text of Executive Order No. 211, there is a reservation clause which provides that the privileges as well as the terms and conditions of all existing mining leases or agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, shall be subject to any and all modifications or alterations which Congress may adopt pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, the strictures of the non-impairment of contract clause under Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution 20 do not apply to the aforesaid leases or agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. They can be amended, modified or altered by a statute passed by Congress to achieve the purposes of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

Clearly, Executive Order No. 279 issued on July 25, 1987 by President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative power has the force and effect of a statute or law passed by Congress. As such, it validly modified or altered the privileges granted, as well as the terms and conditions of mining leases and agreements under Executive Order No. 211 after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution by authorizing the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture, coproduction, or production-sharing agreements for the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources and prescribing the guidelines for such agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial assistance by foreign-owned corporations for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals. Well -settled is the rule, however, that regardless of the reservation clause, mining leases or agreements granted by the State, such as those granted pursuant to Executive Order No. 211 referred to this petition, are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State. In the 1950 case of Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 21 where the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 34 changing the 50-50 sharecropping system in existing agricultural tenancy contracts to 55-45 in favor of tenants was challenged, the Court, upholding the constitutionality of the law, emphasized the superiority of the police power of the State over the sanctity of this contract: The prohibition contained in constitutional provisions against: impairing the obligation of contracts is not an absolute one and it is not to be read with literal exactness like a mathematical formula. Such provisions are restricted to contracts which respect property, or some object or value, and confer rights which may be asserted in a court of justice, and have no application to statute relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the State, and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. They do not prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police powers. By enacting regulations reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community, even the contracts may thereby be affected; for such matter can not be placed by contract beyond the power of the State shall regulates and control them. 22 In Ramas v. CAR and Ramos 23 where the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 authorizing the tenants to charge from share to leasehold tenancy was challenged on the ground that it impairs the obligation of contracts, the Court ruled that obligations of contracts must yield to a proper exercise of the police power when such power is exercised to preserve the security of the State and the means adopted are reasonably adapted to the accomplishment of that end and are, therefore, not arbitrary or oppressive. The economic policy on the exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution could not be any clearer. As enunciated in Article XII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources under the new system mandated in Section 2, is geared towards a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. The exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources are matters vital to the public interest and the general welfare of the people. The recognition of the importance of the country's natural resources was expressed as early as the 1984 Constitutional Convention. In connection therewith, the 1986 U.P. Constitution Project observed: "The 1984 Constitutional Convention recognized the importance of our natural resources not only for its security and national defense. Our natural resources which constitute the exclusive heritage of the Filipino nation, should be preserved for those under the sovereign authority of that nation and for their prosperity. This will ensure the country's survival as a viable and sovereign republic."

Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police Power, being co-extensive with the necessities of the case and the demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs. The passage of Executive Order No. 279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Nowhere in Administrative Order No. 57 is there any provision which would lead us to conclude that the questioned order authorizes the automatic conversion of mining leases and agreements granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211, to productionsharing agreements. The provision in Article 9 of Administrative Order No. 57 that "all such leases or agreements shall be converted into production sharing agreements within one (1) year from the effectivity of these guidelines" could not possibility contemplate a unilateral declaration on the part of the Government that all existing mining leases and agreements are automatically converted into production-sharing agreements. On the contrary, the use of the term "production-sharing agreement" if they are so minded. Negotiation negates compulsion or automatic conversion as suggested by petitioner in the instant petition. A mineral production-sharing agreement (MPSA) requires a meeting of the minds of the parties after negotiations arrived at in good faith and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the subsequent Administrative Order No. 82. We, therefore, rule that the questioned administrative orders are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the law under which they were issued and were intended to secure the paramount interest of the public, their economic growth and welfare. The validity and constitutionality of Administrative Order Nos. 57 and 82 must be sustained, and their force and effect upheld. We now, proceed to the petition-in-intervention. Under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, an intervention in a case is proper when the intervenor has a "legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. "Continental Marble Corporation has not sufficiently shown that it falls under any of the categories mentioned above. The refusal of the DENR, Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga to renew its Mines Temporary Permit does not justify such an intervention by Continental Marble Corporation for the purpose of obtaining a directive from this Court for the issuance of said permit. Whether or not Continental Marble matter best addressed to the appropriate government body but certainly, not through this Court. Intervention is hereby DENIED. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on July 2, 1991 is hereby LIFTED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.