LLP 311 Retail Trade Law 2nd Semester, 3rd Year

further classified by law according to the uses to which they

may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
ARTICLE XII be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five
produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares
expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
life for all, especially the underprivileged.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation,
The State shall promote industrialization and full ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements
employment based on sound agricultural development and of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law,
agrarian reform, through industries that make full of the size of lands of the public domain which may be
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, therefor.
the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair
foreign competition and trade practices. Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible,
determine, by law, the specific limits of forest lands and
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the
all regions of the country shall be given optimum ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks
opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including shall be conserved and may not be increased nor
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide for
organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit
their ownership. logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this
coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of Constitution and national development policies and
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural
and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other economic, social, and cultural well-being.
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary
under the full control and supervision of the State. The laws governing property rights or relations in determining
State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.
into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and
associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is all economic agents shall contribute to the common good.
owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a Individuals and private groups, including corporations,
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have
more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and the right to own, establish, and operate economic
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote
rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial distributive justice and to intervene when the common good
uses other than the development of waterpower, beneficial so demands.
use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to or hold lands of the public domain.
Filipino citizens.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private
fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, CONCEPT
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and The Regalian Doctrine, also known as the jura regalia, is
other mineral oils according to the general terms and a fundamental principle in Philippine constitutional and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to property law that asserts the state's ownership of all lands
the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In and natural resources within its territory.
such agreements, the State shall promote the development
and use of local scientific and technical resources. As highlighted in ARTICLE XII, Section 2: "All lands of the
public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests
entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
days from its execution. resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into alienated."
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national
parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
1
 ★​ Under Philippine law, the Regalian Doctrine registration of a parcel of land under Presidential Decree
generally presumes that all lands not otherwise No. 1529. The respondents sought the registration of Lot 3,
clearly proven to be privately owned remain part of a land parcel they acquired through purchase in 1997,
the public domain. which was previously owned by various individuals.
★​ Private ownership of land must be traced to a valid
title originating from a grant by the State or an The respondents filed an application for the original
authority recognized by the State. registration of Lot 3 on March 12, 2002, which was
supported by a certification from the Department of
REQUIREMENTS PROVING LAND IS ALIENABLE AND Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the
DISPOSABLE OF PUBLIC DOMAIN land was classified as "Alienable or Disposable" as of March
15, 1982. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted
The state, by default, owns all lands. The Public Land Act their application, and the decision was affirmed by the
(Commonwealth Act No. 141), enacted in 1936, provides a Court of Appeals.
system for classifying lands of the public domain. These
lands are classified into: However, the government contested the registration,
arguing that the respondents failed to prove continuous and
★​ Agricultural land exclusive possession of the land dating back to June 12,
★​ Forest or timber land, 1945, or earlier, as required by law. The government also
★​ Mineral land, and highlighted that the land was only classified as alienable
★​ National parks. and disposable in 1982, and thus the period of prescription
against the State should commence from that date.
Under the Regalian Doctrine, unless land has been
reclassified as alienable or disposable, it remains state The Supreme Court found that the respondents did not
property. meet the necessary requirements for registration under
Section 14 (1) or Section 14 (2) of Presidential Decree No.
Only agricultural lands of the public domain can be 1529. The Court emphasized that for land to be considered
alienated or disposed of to private individuals or patrimonial and eligible for acquisitive prescription, there
corporations. Alienation refers to the transfer of ownership must be an express declaration by the State that the land is
rights from the state to private entities. no longer intended for public use or the development of
national wealth. The respondents failed to provide such a
Under the 1987 Constitution, only Filipino citizens or declaration.
corporations that are at least 60% Filipino-owned can
acquire public agricultural lands. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of
the RTC and the Court of Appeals, denying the respondents'
Non-alienable lands such as forests, mineral lands, and application for the registration of Lot 3. The Court ruled that
national parks cannot be sold or transferred to private the respondents were not entitled to the registration of the
ownership but may be leased under certain conditions. The land under the existing laws, reinforcing the Regalian
1987 Constitution allows the state to grant concessions, doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the
licenses, or leases for the utilization of natural resources, State unless there is clear evidence of private ownership.
subject to regulations.
REPUBLIC V MAIJAN-JAVIER (GR 214367)
EXCEPTIONS TO REGALIAN DOCTRINE This case involves the application for land title registration
by Laureana Malijan-Javier and Iden Malijan-Javier over a
★​ Ancestral Lands and Domains parcel of land located at Barangay Tranca, Talisay,
○​ Indigenous peoples and indigenous Batangas, known as Lot No. 1591, Cad. 729, Talisay
cultural communities are given special Cadastre, with an area of 9,629 square meters. The
rights over their ancestral lands under application, filed in June 2009, was initially granted by the
Republic Act No. 8371, the Indigenous Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) on May 5, 2011, and
Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 15,
Ancestral lands and domains are not 2014. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the
considered part of public land, and application, leading to this petition for review on certiorari.
indigenous peoples may assert ownership
based on traditional laws and customs. The Republic opposed the application on several grounds,
★​ Land Grants including the claim that the applicants and their
○​ During the Spanish period, certain private predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous,
land grants were issued by the Crown. exclusive, and notorious possession of the land since June
These remain valid under Philippine law if 12, 1945, or earlier. Additionally, the Republic argued that
properly documented. These lands are an the tax declarations presented by the applicants did not
exception to the state ownership claim constitute competent evidence of bona fide acquisition and
under the Regalian Doctrine. that the land remained part of the public domain, not
★​ Torrens Title System subject to private appropriation.
○​ The Torrens System of land registration
allows private individuals and corporations During the initial hearing, the trial court issued an Order of
to secure indefeasible title to lands that General Default against all except the Republic. The
have been alienated from the public applicants presented testimonial and documentary evidence
domain. Once land is titled under the to support their claim. Testimonies from Laureana
Torrens system, it enjoys the presumption Malijan-Javier, Juana Mendoza Banawa, Ben Hur Hernandez,
of private ownership, which the state can and Loida Maglinao were presented to establish the
only dispute through judicial action. applicants' ownership and the land's classification as
alienable and disposable.
CASES The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision,
giving weight to the testimonies and documents presented
REPUBLIC V SANTOS (GR 180027) by the applicants, including a certification from the
In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Michael C. DENR-CENRO and a survey plan indicating that the land was
Santos, Vanessa C. Santos, Michelle C. Santos, and Delfin within an alienable and disposable zone. However, the
C. Santos, the dispute centers around the original Republic contended that these documents were insufficient

2
without the DENR Secretary's approval of the land Oriental Mindoro, which he claimed to have possessed since
classification. 1936. The Bureau of Lands issued Free Patent No. 516197
in favor of Meynardo, and the Register of Deeds issued
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, Original Certificate of Title No. RP-132 covering two lots.
emphasizing the necessity of presenting a copy of the Subsequently, a portion of one lot was transferred to
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary to Consolacion Dimaculangan Cabrera, who sold parts of it to
establish that the land is alienable and disposable. The other individuals.
Court found that the certification from the CENRO or
PENRO, along with other documents presented by the The Republic filed a complaint for the annulment and
applicants, did not meet the requirement. Consequently, the cancellation of the free patent and titles, arguing that the
Court reversed the CA's decision and denied the application land had been reclassified as forest land and thus was
for land registration due to the lack of sufficient evidence to inalienable. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that
prove the land's alienable and disposable status. the Republic failed to provide proof of reclassification. The
CA affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that the power to
In conclusion, the Supreme Court underscored the classify or reclassify lands lies with the President and that
importance of strict compliance with the requirements for the annotations and certifications presented by the Republic
proving that land is alienable and disposable, highlighting were insufficient evidence.
that the absence of the DENR Secretary's issuance keeps
the land as part of the public domain. The Republic contended that the annotations on Land
Classification Map No. 209 and the certifications from
NAMRIA and DENR indicated a reclassification to forest
BUYCO V REPUBLIC (GR 197733) land. However, the courts held that a positive act of
In the case of Samuel and Edgar Buyco vs. Republic of the reclassification by the President or an authorized executive
Philippines, the petitioners sought to challenge the Court of officer was necessary, which was not shown in this case.
Appeals (CA) decision that reversed the Regional Trial Court The Republic's reliance on Republic v. Animas was found
(RTC) decision granting their application for land misplaced, as it did not establish the need for a positive
registration over a parcel of land in Romblon. The CA had executive act for reclassification.
denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, which led
to the filing of the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the Petition for
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Review on Certiorari, affirming the CA's decision. The Court
reiterated that the classification and reclassification of
The petitioners initially filed their application for land public lands are executive functions and that the Republic
registration in 1976, which was opposed by the Republic failed to prove that the land was reclassified as forest land
through the Director of Lands. The RTC granted their at the time the free patent was issued.
application in 2000, but the CA reversed this decision in
2011, citing the principle of res judicata, as the Supreme
Court had previously ruled against the petitioners in a B.P. BLG. 185 IN RELATION TO SEC. 7 & 8
similar case (G.R. No. 91189).
ARTICLE XII - Section 7&8
The core issues raised by the petitioners were whether the Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
CA erred in not applying the Henson v. Director of Lands private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
precedent, which holds that the dismissal of an application individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire
for land registration does not prejudice its subsequent or hold lands of the public domain.
refiling unless explicitly adjudicated as government
property, and whether the CA violated their right to due Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of
process by not recognizing the removal of obstacles to this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
registration mentioned in the previous case. lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private
lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, affirming
the CA's decision. The Court held that the petitioners failed
to present sufficient evidence to prove that the subject land B.P. BLG. 185
was alienable and disposable, as required under the law. Section 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
The Certification from the Community Environment and has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) was deemed insufficient, capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may
as the original classification approved by the DENR be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of
Secretary or the President was necessary to establish the one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or
land's status. one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as
his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them
In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA's may avail of the privilege herein granted; Provided, That if
decision, denying the petitioners' application for land both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall
registration and dismissing the case without prejudice. The not exceed the maximum herein fixed.
petitioners were unable to meet the evidentiary
requirements to prove that the land in question was In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for
alienable and disposable, leading to the dismissal of their residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a
application. transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential
purposes which, when added to those already owned by
REPUBLIC V HEIRS OF MEYNARDO CABRERA (GR him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein
218418) authorized.
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by
the Republic of the Philippines against the heirs of Section 3. A transferee under this Act may acquire not
Meynardo Cabrera, the heirs of Consolacion Dimaculangan more than two lots which should be situated in different
Cabrera, and several other respondents, challenging the municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines;
decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Provided, That the total area thereof shall not exceed one
Appeals (CA) related to the cancellation of a free patent and thousand square meters in the case of urban lands or one
reversion of land. hectare in the case of rural lands for use by him as urban
land shall be disqualified from acquiring acquiring rural
In 1971, Meynardo Cabrera filed an application for a free land, and vice versa.
patent over an 8,072 square-meter parcel of land in Roxas,
3
 SECTION 10 OF RA 7042

SEC. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant to

the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution. -
Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine
citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a
contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a
private land up to a maximum area of five thousand (5,000)
square meters in the case of urban land or three (3)
hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for
business or other purposes. In the case of married couples,
one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted:
Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area
acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.

In the case the transferee already owns urban or rural land

for business or other purposes, he shall still be entitled to
be a transferee of additional urban or rural land for business
or other purposes which when added to those already
owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas herein
authorized.

A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two
(2) lots which should be situated in different municipalities
or cities anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That the
total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand
(5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three
(3) hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for
business or other purposes. A transferee who has already
acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring
rural land and vice versa". (As amended by R.A. 8179)

On 12 March 2002, the respondents filed with the RTC an

Application for Original Registration of Lot 3. Their
application was docketed as LRC Case No. NC-2002-1292.