Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Natural Resources
Our subject is about the laws on natural resources.
What comprises the natural resources? To determine
that, we must first determine the national territory of
the Philippines. The 1987 constitution article 1
particularly states that:
The national territory
comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and
aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine
areas. The waters around, between,
and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth
and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.
Base on that definition assuming that we already
know the baseline kung ano ang nasa loob nyan, yan
ang pag-uusapan natin law of natural resources.
Natural resources are naturally occurring features and
characteristics of our environment. It often have
significant commercial value. When I say often have
hindi naman lahat ng natural resources may significant
economic value. Meron ring mga resources na minimal
lang ang economic value but still they form part of the
natural resources. For example of it are the mineral
deposits and stocks of edible fish etc.
The natural resources of the country consist of the all
lands of public domain, waters, minerals and other
minerals oil for the process of pontetial energy ,
fisheries, forest or timber, wide life, floral and fauna
and other natural resources.
Jurisprudence itself made a definition of what natural
resources is. In the case of Collado vs C.A:
The term natural resource
includes not only timber, gas, oil coal,
minerals, lakes, and submerged lands,
but also, features which supply a
human need and contribute to the
health, welfare, and benefit of a
community, and are essential to the
well-being thereof and proper
enjoyment of property devoted to park
and recreational purposes.
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
1
In particular we will discuss Section 2 of
Article XII of the 1987 constitution for the purposes
of our study
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
(EDU) of natural resources
shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State.
The resources mentioned above are own by
the state. It pertains to the possession of the state by
means of its sovereign capacity (imperioum power of
the state). The bottom line of this subject, we will
focus on the concept that all lands are owned by the
state. Its the concept of Regallian Doctrine.
Exception such doctrine are agricultural lands. We
have only four kinds of land under the constitution,
Agricultural land, forest land, mineral land and natural
parks. Yang mga sinasabi ninyong industrial, ancestral
etc. those are lands define according to law. Only
agriculktural lands can be onw by private entity. There
is a presumption, if you cannot prove that you own a
particular land, it is presumed to be owned by the
state.
The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least 60 per centum of
whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for
a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such
terms and conditions as may provided
by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
1

industrial uses other than the
development of waterpower, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of
the grant.
This part of the provisions which provides for
the limitation of EDU (exploration, development, and
utilization under the full control and supervision of the
State) . Paano magagawa ng Republic of the
Philippines to develop our vast resources where it has
no budget in itself? So it has come into private entities.
The state may undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-
sharing agreements with Filipino citizens,
corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens.
The State shall protect the nations
marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow
small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well
as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and
fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
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. (
esturya2x)
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
2
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
to 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
or
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 thereof- With this, the
congress provides limitation (
esturya2x bahin kang corona,
hacienda luisita ug katon carp
issue).
Section 4. The Congress shall, as
soon as possible, determine, by law,
the specific limits of forest lands and
national parks, marking clearly their
boundaries on the ground. Thereafter,
such forest lands and national parks
shall be conserved and may not be
increased nor diminished, except by
law. The Congress shall provide for
such period as it may determine,
measures to prohibit logging in
endangered forests and watershed
areas. ( Esturya2 again)
Section 5. The State, subject to the
provisions of this Constitution and
national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to
their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social, and cultural well-
being.
2

The Congress may provide for the
applicability of customary laws
governing property rights or relations
in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain.
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain.
Section 7 basically provides for the rule that aliens
cannot own lands in the Philippines.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who has lost his Philippine citizenship
may be a transferee of private lands,
subject to limitations provided by law.
Executive departments to which the president exercise
power of control and supervision over the natural
resources namely: DENR, DA, DOE.
Regalian Doctrine- Under the regalian doctrine all
lands, not otherwise appearing to be within private
ownership, belongs to the state. In case of doubt, it is
presumed to be owned by the state. ( History of
Regalian Doctrine- Relate to Land Ti Book of Pea) Di
ko talaga marinig boses ni ran. Xenxia C.A. 149 and
P.D. 1529- Land Registration Act .
The Regalian Doctrine was adopted by the 1935-1987
constitution in our country. Sec 2 Article XII shows
that as general rule. Lahat pag-aari ng state. GIPA-
BASA lang gyud ta ni sir.
QUIZ 1
1) Collado vs CA, the land in dispute is located
_____ ans. Antipolo Rizal
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
3
2) ___ an area drained by a river and its
tributaries and encoded by a boundary divided
and separates it from adjacent similar areas.
Ans.
3) ____ includes not only timber . Ans. Natural
Resources
4) _____ jura regalia states that all natural
resources belong to the state.
5) ____ Al Gore film is all about? Global
warming/ climate change.
6) ____ ( True or false ) , The State all natural
wealth that may be found in the bowels of the
earth even if the land where the discovery is
made be private. This is an application of the
Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is
intended for the benefit of the State, not of
private persons. The rule simply reserves to
the State all minerals that may be found in
public and even private land devoted to
"agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential
or (for) any purpose other than mining. Ans.
TRUE
7) ______ ( True of False). In Lee Hong kook vs
David __ title of prescription against the _____
exceed under the Spanish law in force. Prior to
their acquisition by U.S. Ans. FALSE, not Lee
Hong kok vs David but Cario vs Insular.
8) ____ In public law between the government
authority posseded by the state which
appropriately embraced in the concept of
sovereignty, and its capacity to own a acquired
property. The former comes under the heading
of dominion and the latter imperium. The use
of this term is appropriate with reference to
lands held by the state in its proprietary
character. In such capacity, it may provide for
the exploitation and use of lands and other
natural resources, including other diosposition,
excepct as limited by the constitution. Ans.
FALSE
9) 9._____ In the sun beam case, the fact that
the title was issued by the director of lands
confers any of such title if the property covered
by the title is part of public forest. Ans False
10) Under the regalian doctrine all lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within the
private ownership are presumed to belong to
the______ ans. State
11) ____ In Seville vs NDP, unless public land is
shown to have been reclassified alienable to a
private person by the state, it remain part of
the inalienable public domain. Indeed,
occupation thereof in the concept of an owner,
no matter how long, cannot ripen into
ownership as recognized as title. Ans. True
Lecture:
Republic vs Dela Rosa
3

Issue: Whether the land in question is a mineral land
or agricultural land. Who attains the ownership over
these lands?
SC ruling:
The perfection of the mining claim converted
the property to mineral land and under the laws then
in force removed it from the public domain. The Court
feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and
that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half
mineral. Thus, the Regalian doctrine was applicable.
In summary class, _____________________
in this case there are people living on the top of the
land, they have stayed in that land for so many years,
they owned the surface of the land, pero sa baba, with
respect to the minerals you will know that case
questioned what is the classification of the land (
Mineral land or agricultural land ). If you read the case
in depth, may sinabi ang CA na mixed, half-half. But
the SC said its reserved, there is no such thing as a
mix land one, only agricultural and mineral land. So
happen, the existence of minerals in the land, the said
land in nature is a mineral land.
However, Regalian doctrine which, as its name
implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not of
private persons. The rule simply reserves to the State
all minerals that may be found in public and even
private land devoted to "agricultural, industrial,
commercial, residential or (for) any purpose other than
mining." Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural
land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of
such land does not give him the right to extract or
utilize the said minerals without the permission of the
State to which such minerals belong.
In other words, kung makakita kag gold ( itago
nimu) , in the eyes of law, the gold does not belong to
you. In the context of regalian doctrine, that mineral
belongs to the state.
The concept of jura regalia, you have to traced
back to the Spanish time. Which states that everything
belong to the crown. It presupposes that it belongs to
the king.
Carino vs Insular government.
Sinong ponente? ( Justice Holmes) Philippine case? (
YES na YES) Paano pi nadala inemail? ( Toink!)
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
4
Facts:
An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land.
He and his ancestors had held the land as owners for
more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot
customs. There was no document of title issued for the
land when he applied for registration. The government
contends that the land in question belonged to the
state. Under the Spanish Law, all lands belonged to the
Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles.
Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown.
Issue: WON the land in question belonged to the
Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine.
SC Ruling: No.
Law and justice require that the applicant
should be granted title to his land. The United States
Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:
It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to
say that when, as far as testimony or memory goes,
the land has been held by individuals under a claim of
private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public land.
There is an existence of native title to land, or
ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession
under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and
independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as
an exception to the theory of jura regalia.
Lee Hong kok vs David
SC ruled:
Only the Government, represented by the Director of
Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void
certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. This
was not done by said officers but by private parties like
the plaintiffs, who cannot claim that the patent and
title issued for the land involved are void since they
are not the registered owners thereof nor had they
been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings
after claiming it as their private property.
The fact that the grant was made by the
government is undisputed. Whether the grant was in
conformity with the law or not is a question which the
government may raise, but until it is raised by the
government and set aside, the defendant cannot
question it. The legality of the grant is a question
between the grantee and the government.
4

IMPERIUM vs. DOMINIUM: The government
authority possessed by the State which is appropriately
embraced int eh concept of sovereignty comes under
the heading of imperium; its capacity to own or
acquire property under dominium. The use of this term
is appropriate with reference to lands held by the State
in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may
provide for theexploitation and use of lands and other
natural resources, including their disposition, except as
limited by the Constitution.
Sunbeam case:
In this case, the solicitor general in the name
of the republic of the Philippines instituted an action
for reversion alleging that subject land are forest land
hence, inalienable.
ISSUE: won the land is inalienable.
SC RULING. No. In adhering to the regalian doctrine it
subject all lands agricultural, timber and mineral lands
under the dominion of the state. Thus, before any land
may be classified and converted into disposable land
and other purposes, there must be positive act form
the government. The mere fact the title is issue by the
director of lands any validity of such title any
property covered by the title. The case was
remanded. ( I didnt catch up)
Basically class, kahit title na ang lupa na yan
and later found out na forest land pala walang positive
act coming form the government. It will be cancelled.
It will be devoided.
Republic vs sayo: SC said that they contention is
wrong. They cannot rely on the compromise
agreement. At such their compromise agreement is
void. Its not the bases for the registration of the
subject land.
Seville vs NDP
SC ruling: Under the Regalian doctrine, all the lands of
the public domain belong to the State, which is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All
lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State.
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
5
Petitioners arguments are not convincing. Tax
declarations are not conclusive proofs of ownership, let
alone of the private character of the land. At best,
they are merely indicia of a claim of
ownership.[13] In Spouses Palomo v. CA, the Court
also rejected tax declarations as proof of private
ownership, absent any showing that the forest land in
question had been reclassified as alienable.
Absent any showing that the land has been classified
as alienable, their possession thereof, no matter how
lengthy, cannot ripen into ownership. In other words,
they have not become owners of the disputed
property.
Gaya ng sinabi ko kanina, kahit katagal yan hawak mu
yan but it is not an alienable land, that;s not applicable
to registration.
Note: The next case to Seville vs NDP was also
included in the recitation, I cannot catch anymore.
Hinay ang voice ni madam.
QUIZ 2 July 2012
1. In Republic vs ROD, Respondent Atienza was
issued title for a 17 hectares land which turned
out to be within ____________ zone in
Pagbiloa. ANS. Forest.
2. The task of the administrating and disposing of
lands of public domain belongs to the _______
and ultimately, the secretary of
_____________.
3. TRUE or FALSE. In controversies involving the
disposition of public agricultural lands, the
burden of overcoming the presumption of state
ownership of lands of public domain lies upon
private claimant.
4. TRUE or FALSE. Forest land, like minerals or
timber lands which are public lands are not
subject to private ownership unless.........
under the constitution become private
property. In the absence of such classification,
the land remains unclassified public land until
release there from and rendered open to
disposition. The rule is possession of forest
lands, however long cannot ripen into private
ownership.
5. TRUE or FALSE. In miners vs factoran it was
stated, that the adoption of the concept of jura
regalia that all natural resources are owned by
the state embodied in 1935,1973 and 1987
5

constitution as well as the recognition of the
importance of the country.
6. In La Blaan vs Ramos, the nature of the
national resources are intended to
a. To insure the conservation......
b. To serve as an in
c. All of the above
7. ______________, the profession of Alfredo
Tano. Ans Fisherman
8. ANS. Marginal and subsistence fisherman
9. When the constitution speak of
______________, it refers not only to natural
resources of the Philippines, as the constitution
could have very well used the term natural
resources, but also to the cultural heritage of
the Filipino.
Note: Anyeong! I was not able to transcribe the
discussion this day kay walay nagrecord aning adlawa.
Blame to the recorder peeps.. .. Adios!
Quiz 3 August 7 2012
1-4 classification of lands under the constitution
5- Land in dispute in the case of Ayog vs Cusi ans.
Davao City
6- (True or false) A corporation sole has no nationality
ans. TRUE, Republic vs Villanueva
7- ( True or false ) OCENPO of alienable public land for
at least 30 years in accordance with the public land act
ipso jure converts the land to private property, and a
juridical person thereafter acquire the same may have
the title thereto confirmed in his name. True , De
ocsio vs CA
8- ( True or false) 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. "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
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
6
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.- Ans. True
, Pagkatipunan vs CA
9- (True or False ) 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
government. - Ans. TRUE, Gordula vs CA
10- ( True or False) 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.- TRUE, Gordula vs CA
11. ( True or False) Possession of the land while it was
still included in the forest land , or before it was
declared alienable and disposable land of public
domain should be included in the computation of the
30 years OCENPO concept of owner. Ans. FALSE,
Republic vs De Guzman
Lecture August 2012
Article 12 (1-3) of 1987 Constitution and CA 141 Public
land act
- Agricultural lands are exclusively reserved to
citizen of the Philippines and private
corporations and association cannot acquire to
them but they can lease provided .. 60%
owned by Filipino.
- Ayog vs Judge Vicente compare this case to
miner vs factoran. Remember in the latter case
the miners where saying that they have
already vested right but the SC ruled that the
in contrary. Vested right should not be
respected. However in this case the SC was
saying that the constitutional prohibition has
no retroactive effect for they have already
acquired vested right. That vested right
should be respected. How come? (
Buffering...... toink)
QUIZ 4 August 14 2008
6

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
1. _________( transcendental importance) ,
issued raised that are of paramount public
interest , and if they immediately affect the
social, economic and moral well being of the
people.
2. _________ ( PEA) a wholly government owned
and controlled corporation with a special
charter for the purpose to reclaim land,
including foreshore and submerged areas ,
filling , any other means or to acquire
reclaimed land.
3. __________(freedom island) In Chavez vs
PEA, the disputed reclaimed parcel of land
were reffered to as the __________
4. __________( foreshore land) is a part of the
public domain and may be disposed of only by
lease and not otherwise and dry accorsing to
the flow of thw tide.
5. __________ (true or false) the classification
of public land is a function of the executive
branch of the government , specifically the
direction of lands (now director of lands
management bureau) its decision is conclusive.
6. ____________In palomo vs CA, located in the
province of __________
7. _____________( True or false) it is
elementary in the law governing natural
resources that forest land cannot be owned by
private persons. It is not registerable and
possession therepf , no matter how lengthy ,
cannot convert it into properly , unless such
lands are classified as disposable and alienable
land.
8. ______________ ( True or false) , Submerge
lands --- this is also true to foreshore land .
void for being contrary to law.
9. Pre-amari deal was labelled as __________
10. ____________( FALSE) Republic 1899
municipalities chartered cities to reclaimed
foreshore and submerged lands.
Lecture:
Chavez vs PEA
- The SC ruled that the amended JVA violated
the Sec 2 and 3 of article 12 of the 1987
Constitution. Article 1409 of the civil code,
contracts which for its purpose contrary to law
are void contracts. The amended JVA seeks to
transfer to Amari , A thai-private corporation ,
ownership certain hectares of the freedom
island. Such transfer is void for being contrary
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
7
to the constitution which prohibited Private
Corporation from acquiring alienable land of
public domain in our country.
- In the case at bar, the SC as an exception to
the rule of locus standi ruled that the issues
provided for in this case are of transcendental
importance.
- The PEA can acquire this parcel of land and
transfer the said land on its name. It has
special charter for the purpose to reclaim land,
including foreshore and submerged areas , by
filling , any other means or to acquire
reclaimed land. What was nullified is the Joint
venture agreement, which was for amari to
onwed the land not the PEA. The SC explicitly
stated there, that the land should remain
under the name of the PEA.
- In the case, there is a history there of
acquisition of reclaimed lands. Sa panahon ng
ma kastila, private individuals may do so
unless the state reserved its right.
Furthermore, it was reinforce, by the act 9654
which provided for the leased but not the sale
of reclaimed and foreshore lands of
government owned corporation and
individuals. Thereafter , act 9654 mandated
that the government should retain title to all
lands retained. It all requires public bidding.
- Similar to the PEA, the MFR , the amari was
supposed to purchase the property at only
1thousand something... per 200 sqm. ( Sir
discussed the history of land acquisition in the
case) Philippine act 2874 , upon the
recommendation of the secretary of
agricultural and natural resources , shall form
time to time classify land of public domain to
alienable and disposable land of public domain.
The lands disposable under this
title shall be classified as
follows : Lands reclaimed by
the government by dredging,
filling or other means. Ito yan
reclamation. Always under the
difference between submerge
reclamation and foreshore
reclamation.
- Then on 1936, CA 141 , it also address this
reclaimed property. Why are we talking so
much about this reclaimed property? ( btaw
sir). Most of the metropolitan areas reclaimed
lands and these lands are of higher value. PD
1084, to reclaimed lands .
7

- To whom can PEA dispose the same?
o It was not clear upon as to whom. It
said that not all portion of the agreed
JVA should be subject of disposal.
o Part of the agreed JVA, what can be
done it to lease and not dispose the
same to AMARI.
o In this case on 2003, there was a MFR
dealing with the price given by PEA to
AMARI. Based on the dissenting
opinion of Justice Villosillo . SC agreed
that the MFR did not raised any other
issue. Such MFR, is a pro forma thus
prohibited. The SC then discuseed the
same dissenting opinion which cited
the case of Ponce cases pertaining the
City government of Cebu reclaimed a
certain land.
o As to the dissenting opinion, it
discussed that submerged area are still
govern by laws of national government
, it is still part of state and will not
form part of JVA agreement because
the PEA has not acquired jurisdiction
over the property because it is still
submerged (Art12 (2) of the 1987
constitution.)
o In the instant case the part of the land
subject to the JVA are still submerged.
Therefore, only part that are not
submerged can only be leased by the
AMARI. 78% of the total area are still
submerged
By virtue of RA 1889, to reclaimed foreshore lands.
Such RA 1889, does not include submerged land.
Unlike the Ponce case, the sc ruled that in the case at
bar, RA 1889 is not applicable as it only applies to
foreshore land.
The PEA is not an (end-user), its duty is to reclaim
parcels of land and subsequently he has to despose of
it. To whom? It can leased it to private cooperation. It
can sell it to Filipino citizen but not a corporation. What
is the objective of the sale?
-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
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
8
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.
For purposes of discussing, if PEA will sell it to you and
you eventually sell it to AMARI. PWEDE di bah!
FORESHORE land- 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.
The classification of public land is a function of the
executive branch of the government , specifically the
direction of lands (now director of lands management
bureau) its decision is conclusive
REPUBLIC vs Bernabe
The issue in this case, WON the lots claimed by the
respondent could legally be the subject of a judicial
confirmation of title under the public land act.
SC Ruled. No. CA 141 applies excusively to public
agricultural land. Although that there are titles issued
under their names, such issueance shall be void. It
muist be noted that the possession should be counted
1965 , where there was a declaration that it was
already alienable and disposable kahit na they stayed
their for almost 30 year. The titles are not valid for the
subject lands are incapalble of registration.
PALOMO vs CA
The land was located in Albay, hot spring national
park, basically not capable of alienation. What happen
are the palomo spouse where given title apparently
they lost the same. They were asking for the issueance
of the same. The government said no, because the
land is inacapable of alienation. On the argument that
government issued a prior title over the said land. The
Court ruled As regards the petitioners' contention that
inasmuch as they obtained the titles without
government opposition, the government is now
estopped from questioning the validity of the
certificates of title which were granted. As correctly
pointed out by the respondent Court of Appeals, the
8

principle of estoppel, does not operate against the
Government for the act of its agents.
It is elementary in the law governing natural resources
that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. It
is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter
how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, 17
unless such lands are reclassified and considered
disposable and alienable.
The payment of tax declaration is the BEST proof that
your are paying you TAXES. (waley ..)
Neither do the tax receipts which were presented in
evidence prove ownership of the parcels of land
inasmuch as the weight of authority is that tax
declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership in
land registration cases.----
The state in the concept of stewardship, to
promote not only the interest of the state, but to public
welfare. It provides utilization to each and every
Filipino to enjoy and utilize our natural resources. It
forms part of our state, the uses of our natural
resources.
Quiz 5 August 28 2012
1. ________________ citizenship of Wanda
wrobleski
2. _________________ (T or F) the
constitutional provisions which enables aliens
to acquire private lands does not extend to
testamentary succession for otherwise the
prohibition will be meaningless
3. A party to an illegal contract cannot come into
court of law and ask to have his illegal objects
carried out. The law will not aid either party to
an illegal agreement. It leaves the party where
it finds them. this is the principle of
__________
4.
5. Two remedies in Reliosa vs Gaw chee han
6. In PBC vs Lui She, the defendant appellant was
substituted of Wong teng. The deceased Lui
she is the ____________ of Wong teng.
7. In PBC vs Lui she, Justina Santos was already
in her well advance years, ber her only
companions in the house are 17 ____ and 8
maids
8. William Quasha is a ______ citizen
9. William Quasha acquires a parcel of land in
______ Makati city.
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
9
10. _________, expressly accepted the privilege to
US citizen to acquire and exploit natural
resources in the Philippines.
Lectures
TRANSFER OF PRIVATE LANDS
As a rule only Filipino citizens and corporation or
partnership with at least 60% of the shares are owned
by Filipinos are entitled to acquire land in the
Philippines.
Private lands are basically agricultural lands
Agricultural lands may be further classified by law
according to the uses it may be devoted. (Sec 3
Article 12) ex. Industrial lands, commercial lands.
Modes of acquiring lands
1. Private grant- voluntary transfer or
conveyance of private property by a private
ownber, such as sale or donation ex. Deed of
sale etc.
2. Public Grant- Acquisition of alienavle lands of
public domain by homestead patent, sales
patent or othe govrnmnet awards.
a. Ra 1025- it provides for Free patent
on residential areas. It means lands of
public domain in residential areas. Like
in Davao, meron pang mga area na
hindi pa natitiluhan.
3. Involuntary grant- acquisition of private party
against the consent of the former owner, such
as foreclosure sale, execution sale or tax sale.
4. Inheritance- acquisition of private property
through sucssesion
5. Reclamation- filling the submerged lands,
subject to existing laws and government
regulations. Remember the PEA case, there
was no land and they made lands para silang
god.
6. Accretion acquisition of more lands adjoining
the bank rivers due to gradual deposit as a
result of the river current.
7. Prescription- acquisition of title by OCENPO for
a period required by law. ( through acqusistive
prescription.
8. NOTE pinaka favourite ni sir- Attorneys fee.
General rule: Foreigners cannot own land in the
Philippines.
Exception:
1. Acquisition through hereditary succession/
intestate or legal succession
2. Acquisition before 1935 constitution
3. Purchase of not more that 40% interest as a
whole in a condominion project.
9

4. Purchase by former natural born Filipino citizen
who acquired foreign citizenship and has not
applied and granted dual citizenship can
purchase up to 1,000 square meters of
residential land and 1 hectare of agricultural or
farm land.
Section 7 OF 1987 Constitution Save in cases of
herediatary sucssesion, no private land shall be
transfer or conveyed except to.
Napasin nyo ba ang provisison na yan, no where it
does it mentioned foreigner or alien part.
CAN foreign buy a condominium unit?- YES yes yo!.
Its not a land, its just a space.
RAMIREZ vs. VDA RAMIREZ
The issue in this case Is WON the usufruct over real
property in the Philippines in favour of WANDA ,
Austrian citizen , is unconstitutional. SC upheld the
usurfruct in favour of Wanda because usufruct, albeit a
real right , does not vest title to the land in favour of
aliens which is proscribe by the law. It does not
provide for ownership and the naked title remains in
the Filipino but Wanda will have the rights of the fruits
thereof.
RELLOSA vs GAW CHE
This involves the case between a sale between a
Filipino and alien. The SC ruled that a party to an
illegal contract cannot come into courts and asked to
have his illegal objects carried out. The law will not
aid either party to an illegal agreement. It leaves them
when it finds them. This is the principle of Pari Delicto.
Further the court provides for remedies addresss to
this issue to wit:
- For the congress to approve a law laying down
policy and the procedure to be followed in the
connection with transaction
- Action for reversion
- Escheat proceedings
Philippine Banking vs Lui She
Her companions are 17 dogs and 8 maids. Lui She
here is the WIFE or widowed of ______.
Republic vs Quasha
William quahsa here is an American citizen who
acquire certain parcel of land located in Forbes park
Makati city. When his land onweship was question he
invoke the Parity Amendments which gives right to an
American citizen to acquire and exploit natural
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
10
resources here in the Philippines. Parity
ammendenment between US and Phil ( Before the
commonwealth) allows them to acqyire propewrty in
the Philippines. However, ang nexpired na ang parity
ammendmnet.
Issue: WON the Quasha can still owned land despite
the expiration of the Parity Amendment.
SC said No yo! , In view of the expiration of the Parity
Amendment July 3, the US citizen does not have the
right to hold ownership over the lands. They may only
do so not until the expiration of the Parity Amendment.
Quiz 6 September 4 2012
1. _______ is the citizenship of Krivenko (
Russian)
2. The remedy for the aliens as to the ownership
of land as stated in Krivenko vs ROD, should
foreigner dicided to remain here for long to
share our fostune and misfortuntes _____
(Filipino Citizenship ) is not impossible to
achieve.
3. _____ (corporate sole), is a special form of
corporation usually associated with the
clergy.
4. In Roman Catholic Administrator of Davao vs
LRC, roman catholic apostolic administrator of
Davao was headed by _____, ( Clovis Thibault
) a Canadian citizen.
5. ____(False) a deed of absulote sale of a parcel
of land owned by a foreigner to a filipino is
void.
6. ____(True) A Deed of sale of a land owned by
a Filipino to a foreinger is void.
7. ____(false) a deed of absulote sale owned by a
Filipino to a foreigner is void even if the
foreignbeer later acquires Filipino citoizenship
by naturalization. The reckoning point is the
acquisition of the property.
8. ____ (14) incumbent SC justices
9. __ (Mar Roxas) DILG new secretary
10. ___ ( Abaya/ not sure) DOTC secretary . Jose
Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya.
Lectures
What is the citizenship of KRIVENKO? Ans. ALIEN-
LOL- if you answer alien Oh my Gosh. Marsian siguro
dapat.
Krivenko vs ROD
10

In this case it was stated there that aliens cannot
owned lands in the Philippines. What would be their
remedy? For them to own land, the best remedy is to
obtain Filipino citizenship.
ROD vs UNG Sui Temple
Itong Ung Sui temple are owned by Buddist/Chinese.
There are 3 properties here which they are trying to
register in the name of UNG SUI temple. The ROD of
rizal said that, they cannot register the same on the
ground that they are Chinese. Ung Sui argued that the
ROD of rizal cannot refuse for to do so would abriged
the freedom of religion. The SC ruled NO yo! Your
wrong. The donation made by the Filipino is void for
being violative of the constitution. The holding of land
is not a prerequisite of free exercise of religion.
RCAA vs Land registration commission
The issue in this case is WON the petitioner, a
corporation sole, can acquire agricultural land in the
Philippines. SC held: YES yes yo!. Although
administered by a Foreigner, it is actually onwed by
the Filipino citizen. A corporate sole has no
nationality.
NOTE: in the prior case, it was not granted the
registration for it was not a corporate sole but a
association/ allocation( dili clear) . Roman Catholic
Faith herein is a corporate sole. Hindi ba kayo
nagtataka, dapat siguro na the Roman catholic church
nationality must be german , In view of the nationality
of the pope? WELL, the Supreme Court justify it by
saying that in the absence of the capital stock the
controlling membership is composed of Filipino
citizens. And in this case, Filipino ang controlling
members in Davao. Make sure alam nyo distinction
this case class.
LEE BUN Ting vs ALIGAEN
In lee bunting answer my question kung pwede ba ang
petitioner of ROD vs Ung sui temple may file a
subsequent case on basis of the RCAA vs LRC. The SC
said, NO men! Hindi pwede. Barred na sya na res
judicata. The doctrine of this court cannot be
retroactively applied to nullify a prior FINAL ruling in
the same proceedings where prior adjudication was
had, whether the case should be civil or criminal in
nature.
SARSOSA vs CUENCO
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
11
SC ruled that, if the litigated property was
subsequently sold by the foreigner to a Filipino, such
sale is valid. It is cured by the subsequent sale ( mam
galas) The litigated property is no longer in the hands
of a disqualified vendee.
What if Naturalized? Valid parin!
What about naturalization is subsequent?
Nagpanaturalized si foreigner. ( Republic vs IAC)
Republic vs IAC
SC ruled that there is this curring effect. The reckoning
point is not the citizenship at the time of acquisition. It
is the citizenship at the time the of the case in
controversy.
United vs Sebastian ( Brokenshire case)
What is pinama here is the stocks and not the land. It
must be noted that the subsequent change of
ownership of the brokenshire to a Filipino corporation
cured the defect
Email ni sir. jjcoronel@yahoo.com, voice from the
back, anong email ni sir, jayjaycoronel@yahoo.com
haha
QUIZ 7 September 11 2012
1. FALSE. Li Seng and Son Inc was a Chinese
Corporation
2. FALSE .In Ong Ching Ro vs Chinese Citizen can
own real property in the country provided that
the genuine and due execution of the deed of
sale has been established.
3. ____ Erlinda is a native from
4. TRUE In Frenzel vs Catito, it was held that the
sale of 3 parcels of land in favour of the
petitioner who is a foreinger is illegal itself. Its
transaction is void for it violates the
constitution
5. TRUE the constitutional prohibition on aliens
ownership of lands of the public or private
domain... valid if subsequently transfer to a
Filipino.
6. FALSE . In Miller vs Miller , it was held that
implied trust was created and resulted by
operation of law in view of petitioners
marriage to respondent.
7. As provided for in BP 185 as amended by RA
8179, any natural born citizen who has lost his
11

Filipino citizenship and who has legally
capacitated to enter into a contract under
Philippine laws may be transferred of private
land up to maximum area of ____ sq.meters in
urban areas and in rural a total of ___ hectares
to be used by him in business purposes.
8. ____ (TF) as held in Republic vs CA for
purposes of transfer/ acquisition of a parcel of
residentrial land. It is not significant whether
P.R. application title must be approved.
Lecture
ONG CHING PO vs CA
The issue here is WON the sale is valid considering
that the sale was made to accommodate the Chinese
to acquire land in the Philippines. The herein land was
name in the wife of his brother who is a Filipina. SC
ruled that the sale was valid and the sale was not
made in order to circumvent the constitution.
When a foreigner and a Filipina come to you and
asking you to come
FRENZLE VS CATITO
This is a davao case involving a property in Bajada. Its
a typical love story, a love story that gone wrong.
Bakit? The foreigner is still married and si Miss Catito
has also a valid existing marriage. (Mistress Wallpaper)
During their relationship they acquire real properties
one of these properties involves a beach resort
somewhere in davao. Suddenly their relationship
became sour and eventually separated from one
another. Alfred, the alien, filed a case praying that
Ederlina should be ordered to execute the
corresponding deeds of transfer and/or conveyances in
his favor over those real and personal properties he
bought and placed in the name of Ederlina. In this case
the RTC ruled Alfred had no cause of action against
Ederlina for the recovery of the same because as an
alien, he was disqualified from acquiring and owning
lands in the Philippines. So the issue here is : Whether
or not Alfred Frenzel can recover the real properties he
bought and placed under the name of Ederlina or even
to recover the money spent in buying the properties?
SC ruled in negative. Aliens, whether individuals or
corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring
lands of the public domain. Hence, they have also been
disqualified from acquiring private lands. A contract
that violates the Constitution and the law, is null and
void and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It
produces no legal effect at all. The said transactions
are void ab initio because they were entered into in
violation of the Constitution. Thus, to allow the
petitioner to recover the properties or the money used
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
12
in the purchase of the parcels of land would be
subversive of public policy.
So class always understand that when you
become lawyers, I know kailangan nyo protectahan
ang Filipino but always be make the transaction fair.
Paano? Idea lang ha kung sakaling makahiwalay sila,
gawan mu nalng ng pre-signed document ang
foreigner to protect him. In that process masafe ang
foreigner kasi may document sya na pwede nyang
ibenta sa Filipino. Gets mo? So from 500,000
thousand, raised your attorneys fee to 800,000
thousand. Always understand that you loyalty is not in
ur country man but it is the law.
He cannot recover the sale applying Pari
delicto. Alam naman nya ni Alfred. As a matter of fact
3 times na silang nagbuy ng property. That agreement
is contrary to public policy. Further Apply also the
principle of unjust enrichment in this case. Kahit
sabihin natin that she was unjustly enhriched hindi
parin sya makaclaim!
MULLER VS MULLER
The issue in this case is WON Muller respondent
entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the
acquisition of the Antipolo property. The money was
paraphernal, as the same was from the proceeds of
his inheritance. SC ruled that , It would be an indirect
contravention of the constitutional prohibition. To allow
reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to
enjoy the fruits of a property which he is not allowed
to own, thus it is likewise prescribed by law. Also it
would be impossible as the parties are both in pari
delicto. Apperently here class, the CA made that
pronouncement that there was an implied trust that
was made. Explicit ang prohibition not even trust dili
pwede. Do you agree with this? What is later on Muller
wants to sell the property? Can he do so? No parin .
What if she dies? Well pwede nah.
LEE vs REPUBLIC
This case involves the case of reconstitution of title.
Ang Title dito ay nawala. The issue in this case,
Whether the reconstitution is valid. Sc ruled that YES
yes yoh!, the reconstitution is valid.
RATIONALE: The purchase of Lee Liong was made after
the 1935 Constitution and was therefore, a prohibited
transaction since said Constitution prohibited alien
ownership over private agricultural lands except in
cases of hereditary succession. In this case, land is
now in the hands of Filipinos. The original vendee, Lee
Liong, has since died and the land has been inherited
by his heirs and their heirs and it is undisputed that
the current owners are Filipino citizens. The
constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands
12

of the public or private domain was intended to protect
lands from falling into the hands of non-Filipinos. In
this case, there would be no more public policy
violated since the lands are now in the hands of
Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land.
Always remember class that pag naa sa alien and
transfer to a Filipino VALID na. Basically if you are the
lawyer of Mr __ what are your defense? Always
undertstand class that in a case of reconstitution you
cannot question the validity of the title by a collateral
attack. So number 5 is true?
Sections 7 Article XII of the Constitution contain the
following pertinent provisions, to wit:
Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary
succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
Always remember intestate sucesseion not
testamentary ha.
Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of
this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations
provided by law.- BP 185 ito ung provided by law
Reading session:
BP185 , RA 8179, and RA 7019
Question: Foreigner, nagpanaturalized. Subsequently
tinangal nya ang kanyang Filipino citizenship. Anung
mangyari? It will be back to the ownership of the
state.
No. 8 and9 are: 5000 SQMETERS and 3 Hectares. Ano
may reklamo kayo sa law.
REPUBLIC vs __
How did the supreme court rule on the Issue that the
was still part of the public domain. They were applying
under CA 141, how did the SC ruled . remember in this
case, there was a provision that public domain can
only be owned by filipino Kasi hindi pa ito private
property. Paano ki-address ng SC that issue? Bahala
kayo class basahin nyo ang fulltext.
QUIZ 8 September 18 2012
1. _____ is expressly authorize by the Public land
act such as 122 123 and 124 of CA 141. Ans.
Reversion.
2. ________ answer : escheat
3. ________ land subject in the case of REPUBLIC vs
CA. Answer, Pulo mulo Cotabato.
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
13
4. _____ the authority of the director of land to
investigate land is derived from section 91 of
Public land act or CA 141. Ans False
5. _______once a patent has already been issued a
corresponding certificate of title; the land seized to
be a part of public domain and becomes a private
property. So the torrent title upon of one yea shall
be indivisible.
6. ___ it is the state that can file an a proper action
for reversion. Ans True
7. ____ the state can never be subject to estoppel .
Answer: False according to sir never sa never
8. _____ ans. Scarboroo something
9 and 10 current events. US election ung kalaban ni
Obama and something on sweepstakes.
Lecture
So no.1 ai reversion and no. 2 is escheat. Pag escheat
class makita mu naman the state wanted to take back
the land from a foreigner. Pag Filipino hindi sya
escheat reversion sya.
REPUBLIC vs CA
In this case, the SG seeks the action of reversion of a
free patent of the private respondent. Sabi nga natin
class na sa mga reversion and escheat proceeding it is
the government who is the private complainant. The
subject land in this case is in Pulo-mulo south
cotabato. I really didnt know why you didnt find the
case where in fact i already give you the outline.
Anyway in this case, the republic claim that there was
actual fraud was made by the department of land
considering that the application for free patent and
notice for application of free patent were accomplished
after the death of applicant Nicolas preselda ( Not
sure) So namatay nlng si Nicolas hindi pa naaksyonan
ang kanyang application which is a sad part na
nangyayari.
Thereafter, naibenta nga ang property na yun during
the 5 year prohibitory period. Always understand class
in a free patent hindi sya pwede ibenta during the five
year prohibitory period.
Meron nga sinabi ang SC ditto na reflects the reality.
While deficiency was apparent, it cannot be equated
with irregularity. Kasi nga the SG was assailing the
irregularity of the transaction. The Issue in this case
was, Sino ba talaga has the authoprity to conduct the
13

transaction? Always understand that here there was
already a title and title after 1 year is already
indefeasible. Sabi nga nila the director of land has no
longer the authority to investigate.
However the SC ruled that it is the duty of the director
of land to conduct investigation from time to time for
the purpose to ascertain the information in the
applicant true or whether it continue to exist . For the
purpose of this investigation the director of land is
hereby empower to issue subpoena.
Therefor it is not only the right and the duty of the
director of land to conduct investigation but also to file
appropriate court action or reversion thereof. The
indivisibility of the title is not a bar to the director of
land as to how the title should be acquired. For
puspose of the said investigation is to determine WON
actual fraud is committed that will warrant reversion.
Ang ending kasi nito class, the SC ruled that there was
no fraud to the title even though that it was granted to
a person already dead. It was not his fault that he
died prior to the release of the title. The hiers are also
in pari delicto. Sabihin nila ay mali pala si daddy sa
pagsell na lng, reimburse nlng natin. So the ownership
of the land here is reverted to the state. Ok
So anung mangyayari nyan, may mag-aaply naman
bago. The current possessor will prove that he has
been OCENPO to the said property.
Baguio vs Republic
This case the patent of certificate of title was given in a
parcel of land in Cebu. SI Micheal, meyron syang
reclaimed area and he made developments to such
then he filed a ___ registration. Apparently the
petitioner bagiuo he was able to apply free patent at
the said land. Isipin mo ikaw ang may possession at
may biglang tao nagapply. Alam nyo class nangyayari
na sa isang TCT no. dalawang land ang nacover like
ang isa nasa agdao ang isa naman nasa lanang.
Nangyayari yan. Well ok and dalawang title it just
happen they share the same title. Aslo nangyayari rin
na sa isang parcel of land , dalawa rin and TCT.
Delikado to.
Apparently, in this case the Micheal claim that the land
is an agricultural land and reclaimed parcel of land.
that he has been OCENPO of the same for along period
of time. Nagfile ito si Micheal through the Republic. To
be honest di ko magexplain with kung paanno ginawa
ito ni micheal. Nag ask siguro sya ng assistance from
Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
14
the solicitor general. So it was the republic of the
Philippines that filed the action in behalf of micheal
calling for the reversion of the said land.
Petitioner argued that it has already presicred kasi
according the law indivisible na ang title ko di na
pwede is question. Diba once a patent has already
been issued a correspeding certificate of title, the land
seized to be a part of public domain and becomes a
private property. So the torrent title upon of one yea
shall be indivisible. So the answer to number 5 is
TRUE. Is it a general rule? YES yes yoh! However, it
not infallible. It is still subject to exceptions. Even upon
the lapse of the said one year the state may file an
action for reversion if fraudulently acquire by private
individuals.
How can you say it is fraudulent? It because in the
application of bagiuo, he stated there that he was in
OCENPO of the said property, were in truth and in fact
it was micheal.
URQUIAGA and MARIA AGUIRRE vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
Cases and Crisostomo were registered owners of
parcels of land located at dipolog city. However, there
were an incident were the workers of the petitioner
entered into the said lot, because they were only
adjacent to each other. The workers here started to
gather nipa house there (?) after that it was assured
by the petitioner that it will not happen again.
Unfortunately, it happen again and this time the
petitioners claim ownership of the said land.
Nagpabarangay sila and thereafter went to RTC where
the RTC ruled in favour to the spouses who has a
torrens title. SC held that petitioner has no right to
question the validity of the spouses title. If the land
was fraudualently acquire it is the state that has the
right to institute the action and not the petitioner and
this case the state did not to so. The subject land was
public domain before the registration there can be no
way that the petitioner may file the action to the court.
So first we have to fisrt establish your right to
question the same.
TANKIKO vs CEZAR
So basically in consonance to the principle that the
state is the one who may file the action for reversion.
If you are not the proper party then it would be
dismissed. Diba napansin niyo sa micheal case it was
14
 Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
15
the republic and not micheal itself. So the state talaga were granted after the effectivity of 1987 shall be
dapat. converted into production sharing agreement with 1
year from the effectivity of the guidelines
8. _____ in La bugal-bugal vs Ramos, it was held that
Republic vs CA- G.R. No. 116111. January 21, the FTAA is a service contract which allows the
1999 foreigner corporation to manage the entire range of
mining activities in the country.
9. _____ The Philippine government entered into a
So basically class, as general rule the state cannot be finance revenue a technology assistance agreement
with the WMCP. The said agreement was assailed to
put in estoppels. But this is not an absolute rule. So be unconstitutional where the SC upheld because?
the answer in no 7 is false because it states there a. All of the above-
never. Always remember class never say never. As The use of the Phrase agreement
illustrated in this case although ... in this case it was involving technical or financial
nearly 20 years kasi the title involve here was obtain assistance does not indicate to
exclude other mode of assistance.
1960 pa , the state apparently sleep on its right. So
The phrase agreement involving
the prolonged in action tantamount into laches. either technical /financial
assistance are in fact service
WHAT CONSTITUTE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY control
The concept of control as stated in
ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES (RA the constitution means the power
of the state to direct , restraint,
9522)
regulate and governed.
10. ______ Mining permits, license and other mining
It provides for the baseline. Alam nyo bay un
grants may be modifies and altered by law as a
baseline? Diba it is by virtue to the archipelagic reasonable exercise of police power.
doctrine. ( Drawing si sir) By virtue of this doctrine
which was introduce by carlos p Romulo drawing na
Quiz 10 October 16 2012
maganda-. Tignan nyo ang section 1 it provides for
latitude and longhitude kuns sa title pa yun ung Warning: walay recording. Reading session sa PD 705
technical description. ni sya about the law

CHINA and Philippine debate. If it part of our territory 1. __ PD 389 otherwise known as the resource
it is an open decleration of war. .... and we cannot to forest code. Ans. False
anything.. 2. ___ The act of cutting, gathering, collecting,
removing, or possessing forest products
E.0/A.O. 29 september 5 2012- provided for west
without authority now constitutes a distinct
Philippine sea. Effectively alienating area govern by the
offense independent from the crime of theft
same.
under Articles 315 of the Revised Penal Code
Warning: Walang recording as provided in section 68 of PD 705. Ans False.
Dili 315, 309 and 310 dapat
QUIZ 9 October 2 2012 3. ____ any person who shall provide for any
information leading to the apprehension and
1. ________, essentially an extractive in the deposition conviction of any offender for any violation of
of non renewable resources.
2. _______, RA 7076 or otherwise known as the this code or other forest laws, regulation or
Philippine mining act of 1995 confifiscation of forest products shall be given
3. Refers to all naturally occurring inorganic substance a reward in the amount of the proceeds of the
in solid, gas, liquid or any intermediate state
confiscated foret products known as the total
including energy materials such as coal, petroleum ,
natural gas , radioactive materials, and geothermal log ban. Ans false.
energy. 4. _____A timber license agreement is not a
4. __ means , an area bounded by minute of latitude contract but a mere privilege which may be
and minute of longitude.
5. ____ grants the right to conduct exploration for all modified, amended when national interest so
minerals in spririted areas. required in the case of Ysmael vs Director of
6. _____ this concept states that all natural resources Deputy Executive.
are owned by the state embodied in 1935, 1973 and
1987.
5. _____ Ysmael vs Director of deputy executive,
7. _______ In miners vs factoran, the assailed order Ernesto was the minister of ____ ans. Minister
declared the all mining leaves or entiltemnet which of National Resources.
15
 Natural Resources Transcriptions
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel
Prepared by 2-Manresa 2012-2013
16
6. ____ In the said case, the .. acted with grave
abuse of discretion except
a.
7. ___ The Filipino children represented by their
mothers by way of class suit as held in the
case of Miners vs Factoran ans. FALSE, (
Renan: Di mo na kami maloloko sir )
8. ___ ans. Intergeneration responsibility.

Note: Pasensya people di ko natapos ug copy kay

paspas kaau ang mga panghitabo. Almost 30 minutes
gyud to reflection nato. (T-T) ( T-T)

alisin mo ang takot mo, Kung magagawa ng iba bat di mo kayang gawin? Baka sobra pa yan ang
kayang mong gawin . Overcome your fear, it is just a state of mind. EVERYTHING IS DOABLE.
Everything is POSSIBLE- Sir Eagle in The Eagle that teaches the fish how to fly-

16