Oposa vs Factoran

Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational

Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:
A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing
their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents
against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be
rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to:

1.

Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;

2.
Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or
appraising new TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises. They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant in
allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in
trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1.

Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2.
The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly
pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:

Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to prevent the
misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the rhythm and harmony of nature
which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land,
waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put
a little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.

CARIO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906

MATEO CARIO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT

G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906

FACTS: On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cario went to the Court of Land Registration to
petition his inscription as the owner of a 146 hectare land hes been possessing in
the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo only presented possessory information and
no other documentation. The State opposed the petition averring that the land is
part of the US military reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State
appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should be given to him by reason

of immemorial use and occupation as in the previous case Cansino vs Valdez &
Tiglao vs Government.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of his
possession of it for some time.

HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against the government. The
government is still the absolute owner of the land (regalian doctrine). Further,
Mateos possession of the land has not been of such a character as to require the
presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used
for anything but pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions thereof, and
since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by the
petitioner for any purpose.

While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he
proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he
must make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain from
them his deed, and until he did the State remained the absolute owner.