Article XII. National Economy and Patrimony Ruling: Yes.

A grant by the government through

duly competent public officials cannot be
disregarded and may not be disposed of by the
Colmenares, et al vs. Duterte state. The legality of the grant is a question
between the grantee and the government. A
Facts: void certificate of title issued according to a void
The petitioner assailed the constitutionality of a patent can only be canceled by the government.
Memorandum of Agreement regarding a loan
between China and Philippines. The process
involved approvals from various Philippine Cariño vs. Insular Government of the Philippine
government agencies including the Department Islands
of Finance, National Irrigation Authority,
Facts:
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System, and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Mateo Cariño filed his petition in the court of
Land Registration praying that he be granted to
Petitioners claim that conditions for loan
title of a parcel of land consisting of 40 hectares.
disbursement, especially payments to Chinese
He and his ancestors had held the land as
contractors, go against the "Filipino First" policy
owners for more than 50 years, which he
and procurement laws
inherited under Igorot customs. There was no
Issue: WON the loan agreements are document of title issued for the land when he
constitutional. applied for registration.

Ruling: Yes. The court asserts that the loan The government contends that the land in
agreements are consistent with constitutional question belonged to the state. Under the
policies. The court acknowledges a hybrid Spanish Law, all lands belonged to the Spanish
procurement approach but concludes that it Crown except those with permit private titles.
aligns with relevant laws and regulations. Moreover, there is no prescription against the
Despite concerns about the exclusion of Filipino Crown.
contractors, the court declines to invalidate the
Issue: WON the land in question belonged to
loan agreements, emphasizing stability and
the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine.
predictability in the legal system for the
country's economic growth. Ruling: No. Law and justice require that the
applicant should be granted title to his land.

It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say

Lee Hong Kok vs. David
that when, as far as testimony or memory goes,
Facts: the land has been held by individuals under a
claim of private ownership, it will be presumed
Respondent acquired lawful title to a parcel of to have been held in the same way from before
land pursuant to his miscellaneous sales the Spanish conquest, and never to have been
application. The Director of Lands made an public land.
order of award and for issuance of a sales
patent.

The Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural La Bugal-B’laan vs. Ramos

Resources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent
Facts:
pursuant to which an OCT was issued by the
Register of Deeds of Naga City to David. Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of RA
7942 as well as its implementing rules, and the
Petitioners Lee Hong Hok et al. claim that the
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
Title of Respondent David over the land is
(FTAA) between the government and Western
private property for it was formed through
Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP)
accretion and should be Null and Void.
to be declared unconstitutional on grounds that
The CA found no legal justification for nullifying they allow fully foreign-owned corporations like
the right of David over the disputed land arising WMCP to exploit, explore and develop
from the grant made in his favor by appropriate Philippine mineral resources in contravention of
public officials. Article XII Section 2 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the
Charter.
Issue: WON the Government has the authority
to dispose of the said land. The Court En banc ruled that certain provisions
of RA 7942 and its FTAA as unconstitutional.
Issue: WON RA 7942 is constitutional. resources which provides Section 2, Article XII of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution which
Ruling: No, Section 2 of Article XII of the
mandates that the exploration, development,
Constitution does not allow foreign-owned
and utilization (EDU) of natural resources shall
corporations to undertake mining operations
be under the full control and supervision of the
directly. They may act only as contractors of the
State (REGALIAN DOCTRINE).
State under an FTAA; and the State, as the party
directly undertaking exploitation of its natural
resources, must hold through the government
NCIP vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining
all exploration permits and similar
Company and Far Southeast Gold Resources
authorizations.
Facts:

DENR executed a Mineral Production Sharing

JG Summit Holdings v CA
Agreement (MPSA) with respondents that
Facts: allows them to mine operations within the
province of Benguet.
The National Investment and Development
Corporation (NIDC) entered a joint venture During the effectivity of MPSA, Congress
agreement (JVA) with Kawasaki for PHILSECO. enacted RA 8371, otherwise known as the
NIDC's interest eventually went to the National Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).
Government, leading to the privatization of This requires as a precondition, the prior
PHILSECO. Kawasaki, exercising a right of first certification of NCIP that any grant or renewal of
refusal, acquired shares through Philyards concession, license, or product-sharing
Holdings, Inc. (PHI). JG Summit protested the agreement does not involve an area that
bid, arguing PHILSECO's public utility status and overlaps with an ancestral domain and that no
the violation of Filipino-foreign 60%-40% certification shall be issued by the NCIP without
capitalization. the free and prior informed and written consent
of the ICCs/IPs concerned.
Issue: WON under the 1977 Joint Venture
Agreement, is limited to 40% capitalization. Issue: WON the renewal of MPSA is exempt
from the Certification Precondition under the
Ruling: No. The Court ruled PHILSECO isn't a
IPRA.
public utility, so the 40% limit doesn't apply. If
the foreign shareholdings of a landholding Ruling: NO. The Court elucidated that the FPIC
corporation exceeds 40%, it is not the foreign and Certification Precondition under Section 59
stockholders’ ownership of the shares that is of the IPRA are in accordance with the State's
adversely affected but the capacity of the policy to provide protection to the rights of
corporation to own land. No law disqualifies a ICCs/IPs. It confirmed that respondents do not
person from purchasing shares in a landholding have a vested right for the renewal of MPSA
corporation even if the latter will exceed the under the same terms and conditions, as a
allowed foreign equity, what the law disqualifies mining agreement partakes of a mere privilege
is the corporation from owning land. granted by the State.

Bayan Muna Party-list et.al vs. President Gloria Sta. Rosa Mining vs. Leido
Macapagal Arroyo
Facts:
Facts:
P.D. 1214 was issued requiring holders of
This case is about the Joint Marine Seismic subsisting and valid patentable mining claims to
Undertaking (JMSU) to conduct joint research file a mining lease of application within one year
on the petroleum resource potential of the from the approval of the Decree.
South China Sea. The petitioners argued that
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of P.D.
the JMSU allowed foreign corporations to
1983 as it amounts to a deprivation of property
conduct large-scale exploration in areas owned
without due process of law.
by the Philippines, in violation of the
Constitution. Issue: WON P.D. 1214 is constitutional.
Issue: WON JMSU is constitutional.

Ruling: No. JMSU is unconstitutional as it

violates the State's control over natural
Ruling: Yes. It is a valid exercise of the sovereign Law) to manage the orderly sale, disposition,
power of the State, as owner, over the lands of and privatization of the assets of the National
the public domain, of which the petitioner’s Power Corp. (NPC) over a 25-year period. In the
mining claims still form a part. discharge of its said duties, PSALM held a public
bidding for the sale of a hydroelectric power
plant. After evaluating the submitted bids,
PSALM awarded the sale to K-Water, a Korean
company.
San Miguel Corporation vs. CA
IDEALS had been sending letters to PSALM to
Facts: request for copies of documents pertaining to
DOLE Iligan District Office conducted a routine the sale. The first letter requested for copies of
inspection and discovered that there was the Terms of Reference and proposed bids
underpayment of regular Muslim holiday pay to submitted by the bidders. The second letter
its employees. requested for information regarding the winning
bidder, such as company profile, contact person,
Macaraya, Director IV of DOLE Iligan issued a office address, and Philippine registration.
compliance order directing SMC to consider Despite press releases announcing K-Water as
muslim holidays as regular holidays and to pay the winning bidder, PSALM failed to sufficiently
both Muslim and non-Muslim employees provide the petitioners with the information
holiday pay within 30 days from the receipt of they were asking for.
the order.

Petitioner contends that non-Muslim employees

are not entitled to regular Muslim holiday pay Director of Lands vs Aquino
and is contrary with the provision of P.D 1083. Facts:
Issue: WON non-Muslim employees of SMC are Abra Industrial Corporation (AIC), a duly
entitled to regular Muslim holiday pay. registered corporation established for the
Ruling: Yes. P.D 1083 Provides that the purpose of setting up a cement factory, claims
provisions under it shall be applicable only to be the owner of the whole 70-hectare area.
muslims. However, there should be no It filed in the then Court of First Instance of Abra
distinction between muslim and non-muslims as an application for registration in its name of said
regards payment of the benefits for muslim parcels of land alleging that it has been in the
holiday. possession of his predecessors.

Petitioner contends that AIC had no registerable

Republic vs. Bantigue Point Development title and that the highly mineralized parcels of
Corporation land applied for were within the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve which had not yet
Facts: been released as alienable and disposable land
Respondent filed with the RTC of Rosario, pursuant to the Public Land Law.
Batangas an application for original registration Issue: WON the forest land reserves in this case
of title over a parcel of land located at San Juan, is covered in the Regalian Doctrine.
Batangas.
Ruling: Yes. Pursuant to this constitutional
provision, the land must first be released from
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss its classification as forest land and reclassified as
agricultural land in accordance with the
certification issued by the Director of Forestry.
Alvarez vs. PICOP This is because the classification of public lands
is an exclusive prerogative of the executive
Facts:
department of the government and not of the
courts. Moreover, a positive act of the
government is needed to declassify a forest land
Ideals vs. PSALM
into alienable or disposable land for agricultural
Facts: or other purposes.

PSALM is a GOCC mandated by RA 9136 (Electric

Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 or the EPIRA
Republic of PH vs. CA
Facts: development and utilization of the country’s
natural mineral resources.
Jose Y. De La Rosa filed an application for the
registration of a parcel of land in Benguet
Province, consisting of nine lots.
Republic of PH vs. T.A.N Properties, Inc.
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. and Atok-Big Wedge
Facts:
Mining Company opposed the application,
asserting their respective mineral claims over T.A.N. Properties, Inc. (TPI) applied for
portions of the land. The Republic of the registration of 54 hectares of land in Batangas
Philippines, through the Bureau of Forestry City and the Republic opposed. TPI won in the
Development, also opposed the registration, RTC and CA level as these courts found that the
claiming that the land was part of the Central testimonies of its witnesses has proven open,
Cordillera Forest Reserve and not subject to continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
alienation. in the concept of an owner. (OCENPICO) The
Supreme Court reversed these rulings as there
Issue: WON the land subject to the application
was no valid proof that the land was alienable,
for registration is alienable and registerable.
or that there was OCENPICO proven sufficiently.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the land in Since, there was no OCENPICO, a corporation is
question was not alienable and registerable due prohibited from owning alienable land of the
to its classification as mineral land. The mining public domain. They can only hold these under
claims of Benguet and Atok were found to have a lease.
been perfected before the 1935 Constitution's
Issue: WON the land is alienable and disposable.
prohibition on the alienation of public lands,
except agricultural lands, came into effect. As a Ruling: No, all lands not appearing to be clearly
result, the land was deemed to have become of private dominion presumably belong to the
the private property of Benguet and Atok, State. the presumption that the land subject of
excluding any claims of ownership by the an application for registration is alienable and
applicants. disposable rests with the applicant. In this case,
the certifications presented by the applicant
(from CENRO and Regional Technical Director of
Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao the Forest Management Services) are not
Gold Mining Corp. sufficient. Under the DENR Administrative
Order, the CENRO can only issue a certificate for
Facts:
lands 50 hectares and below and the PENRO for
The case involves the “Diwalwal Gold Rush above 50 hectares. These certifications have no
Area”, a rich tract of mineral land located inside probative value.
the Agusan- Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve in
Davao del Norte and Davao Oriental.
Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR
Since then, several groups, large corporations,
small-scale mining operations, Cooperatives, Facts:
and other entities have been vying for the rights
The petitioners assail certain provisions of the
to extract minerals from the area.
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)
PGMA issued Proclamation number 297. This and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR)
proclamation excluded an area of 8,100 on the ground that these amount to an unlawful
hectares located in Monkayo, Compostela deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands
Valley, and proclaimed the same as mineral of the public domain as well as minerals and
reservation and as environmentally critical area. other natural resources therein, in violation of
the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2,
Issue: WON the issuance of Proclamation No.
Article XII of the Constitution.
297 can outweigh claims over the Diwalwal Gold
Rush Area. Issue: WON certain provisions of IPRA
contravene the Constitution.
Ruling: YES. Upon the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution, the State assumed a more Ruling: No, the provisions of IPRA do not
dynamic role in the exploration, development contravene the Constitution. Examining the
and utilization of the natural resources of the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to
country. With this policy, the State may pursue the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural
full control and supervision of the exploration, resources within their ancestral domain.
Ownership over the natural resources in the
ancestral domains remains with the State and lots 347 and 348 situated in San Pablo City. At
the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs the time of the purchase, respondent spouses
over the natural resources in their ancestral were then natural-born Filipino citizens.
domains merely gives them, as owners and Spouses filed an application for registration of
occupants of the land on which the resources title of the two 2 parcels of land before the
are found, the right to the small scale utilization Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City.
of these resources, and at the same time, a
Petitioners argues that respondents have
priority in their large scale development and
acquired Canadian citizenship through
exploitation.
naturalization to justify the registration thereof
in their favor.

Telecom vs COMELEC Issue: WON the parcels of land constitute a

private land and should the title be granted.
Facts:
Ruling: Yes. The parcels of land sought to be
Petitioner Telecommunications and
registered no longer form part of the public
Broadcasting Attorneys of the Philippines Inc
domain. They are already private in character
and GMA challenged the validity of Section 92
since private respondents' predecessors-in-
of BP 881 on the ground that:
interest have been in open, continuous and
a. It takes property without due process of exclusive possession and occupation thereof
law and just compensation – taking under claim of ownership. The law provides that
airtime from radio and televisions a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
without compensation. lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
b. It denies radio and television companies transferee of a private land up to 1,000 sqm if
equal protection of the law-it singles urban, or 1 hectare in case of rural land, to be
out radio and televisions company to used by him as his residence.
provide air time.
c. It is in excess power given to COMELEC
to supervise or regulate the operation Zaragosa vs. CA
of media communication or information
Facts:
during election period-it is argued that
the power to supervise and regulate Flavio Zaragoza Cano died intestate and was
given to COMELEC under Article IX-C of survived by his four children. Private respondent
the Constitution does not include power Alberta Zaragoza-Morgan filed a complaint with
to prohibit. CFI against his brother Florentino and Erlinda,
herein petitioners, for delivery of her
Issue: WON section 92 of BP 881.
inheritance share, consisting of Lots 943 and
Ruling: Yes. Petitioners claims are without merit. 871, and for payment of damages.
All broadcasting companies, whether by radio or
She alleged that her father, in his lifetime,
tv is licensed by the government. Airwave
partitioned the aforecited properties among his
frequencies have to be allocated as there are
four children. The shares of her brothers and
more individuals who want to broadcast than
sister were given to them in advance by way of
there are frequencies to assign. A franchise is
deed of sale, but without valid consideration,
this a privilege, subject to amendments by
while her share, which consists of lots no. 871
Congress in accordance with the constitutional
and 943, was not conveyed by way of deed of
provisions. Their flea for Section 92 (free air
sale then. She averred that because of her
time) and Section II of RA No. 6646 (ban on paid
marriage, she became an American citizen and
political ads) should be invalidated would pave
was prohibited to acquire lands in the
the way for a return to the old regime where
Philippines except by hereditary succession. For
moneyed candidates could monopolize media
this reason, no formal deed of conveyance was
advertising to the disadvantage of candidates
executed in her favor covering these lots during
with less resources.
her father’s lifetime.

Issue: Whether or not the partition inter vivos

Republic vs. CA by Flavio Zaragoza Cano of his properties, which
include Lots 871 and 943, is valid.
Facts:
Ruling: YES. The Court held that it is basic in the
Respondent spouses, Juan and Juana De La Cruz
law of succession that a partition inter vivos
bought unregistered parcels of land particularly
may be done for as long as legitimes are not
prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code is clear
on this.
Osmeña vs. Osmeña parcels of land to respondent as her
paraphernal properties; the tools and
Facts:
equipment in favor of the petitioner as his
Before her death, Chiong Tan Sy executed a last exclusive properties, and the two houses co-
will and testament in which she enumerated her owned by the parties.
properties. The ancestral house was specifically
On appeal, the petitioner insisted that the
mentioned however the lots were not. The titles
money used to purchase the subject properties
of the lots were in the name of the
came from his own capital funds and that they
respondents’ father. Upon Ignacio’s death,
were registered in the name of his former wife
respondents transferred the title to their own
only because of the constitutional prohibition
names.
against foreign ownership.
Petitioner asserts that she is a co-owner of the
Issue: WON the petitioner can assert claiming a
three litigated properties. She argues that the
right of half the
two lots were her mother’s properties and were
part of the inheritance that she and her siblings
received upon their mother’s death and that the
placing of Ignacio’s name was done merely
because their mother is a Chinese national who
was prohibited by law to own land in the
Philippines.

The respondents assert their claim to the

disputed properties by virtue of the transfer
certificate title covering the lots issued in their
father’s name and a deed of sale signed by
petitioner herself, covering her share in the
ancestral house. Both trial court and CA
recognized the validity of the said documents
and rendered judgement in favor of the
respondents

Issue: WON the CA erred in giving credence to

the deed of sale and in holding that
respondents are the owners of the disputed
lots.

Ruling: No, Assuming arguendo that the litigated

lots were actually the properties of Chiong Tan
Sy and that the same were only put in the name
of the respondents' father because he was the
only Filipino citizen in the family at the time the
properties were purchased, this Court will not
consent to any violation of the constitutional
prohibition on foreign ownership of land.

Beurmer vs. Amores

Facts:

Petitioner, a Dutch National, and respondent, a

Filipina,. After several years, the RTC declared
the nullity of their marriage on the basis of the
former’s psychological incapacity. Consequently,
the petitioner filed for the dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership praying for the distribution
of the properties claimed to have been acquired
during the subsistence of their marriage.

The RTC rendered its decision dissolving the

parties’ conjugal partnership, awarding all the