1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 1

I. Constitutional Provisions They claimed that as taxpayers they have the right to the full
Full text: Philippines's Constitution of 1987 benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the
country’s rainforests. They prayed that a judgment be rendered
A. National Territory ordering Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr, his agents,
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with representatives, and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all
all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other existing timber license agreements in the country and cease and
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, approving new timber license agreements.
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action?
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between,
and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their RULING: Yes, petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the of common interest to all Filipinos. The right to a balanced and
Philippines. healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. The said right implies the judicious
B. Declaration of Principles and State Policies (Sec. 15 and 16) management of the country’s forests. This right is also the
Full text: 1987 Constitution - Article II mandate of the government through DENR. A denial or violation of
that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All
of the people and instill health consciousness among them. licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the 2. Arigo vs. Swift, GR No. 206510, September 16, 2014
rhythm and harmony of nature. Full text: GR No. 206510

1. Oposa vs. Factoran, GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993 FACTS: The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine
Full text: GR No. 101083 countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December 2012, the US
Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the
said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the
FACTS: A taxpayer’s class suit was initiated by the Philippine Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose
Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI) together with the minors Juan of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” On
Antonio Oposa et al and their parents. All were duly represented.
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 2

January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan. significance to society, or of paramount public interest.

On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., we recognized the
next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at “public right” of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology
2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right
miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil. Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the
environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros
Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners
and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary
a balanced and healthful ecology. citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have legal standing. own and future generations.

RULING: YES. Petitioners have legal standing. Locus standi is “a C. Bill of Rights
right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.” Full text: 1987 Constitution - Article III
Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial interest in a
case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a D. National Economy and Patrimony (Sec. 2 and 3)
result” of the act being challenged, and “calls for more than just a Full text: 1987 Constitution - Article XII
generalized grievance.” However, the rule on standing is a
procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 3

natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural local scientific and technical resources.
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations execution.
at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.
and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified
In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
industrial uses other than the development of water power, Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not
hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology,
lakes, bays, and lagoons. and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian
reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for leased and the conditions therefor.
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms 1. Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands, GR No. 48321, August 31, 1946
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the Full text: GR No. L-48321
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 4

decree of registration must be deemed also to have been acquired

FACTS: Oh Cho, a citizen of the Republic of China, purchased in by him. The benefits provided in the Public Land Act for
1938 from Antonio, Luis and Rafael Lagdameo a parcel of land applicant's immediate predecessors in interest should comply
located in the residential district of Guinayangan, Tayabas. On June with the condition precedent for the grant of such benefits. The
17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for the registration of said parcel of land. condition precedent is to apply for the registration of the land of
The Director of Lands opposed the application because, among which they had been in possession at least since July 26, 1894.
other grounds, the Constitution prohibits aliens from acquiring This is what the applicant's immediate predecessors in interest
public or private agricultural lands. The inspector of the Bureau of failed to do. They did not have any vested right in the lot
Lands stated that the land is agricultural land in accordance with amounting to the title which was transmissible to the applicant.
an opinion rendered in 1939 by the Secretary of Justice. The Court The only right, if it may thus be called, is their possession of the lot
of First Instance of Tayabas, rendered a decision overruling the which, tacked to that of their predecessors in interest, may be
opposition decreeing the registration prayed for the applicant. The availed of by a qualified person to apply for its registration but not
Director of Lands appealed the decision. The Solicitor General by a person as the applicant who is disqualified. Thus, it is urged
maintains that the applicant, not being a citizen of the Philippines, that the sale of the lot to the applicant should have been declared
is disqualified to buy or acquire the parcel of land in question and null and void. Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution, reads as
that the purchase made in 1938 is null and void. Oh Cho invokes follows:
the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), or should it not be "All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the
applicable to the case, then he would apply for the benefits of the public domain waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and
Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141). He invokes further that his other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and
predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive other natural resources of the Philippines belong to
and notorious possession of the lot from 1880 to filing of the the State, and disposition, exploitation,
application for registration on January 17, 1940. development, or utilization shall be limited to
ISSUE: Whether Oh Cho is qualified to buy or acquire the parcel of citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or
land in question. associations at least sixty per centum of the capital
HELD: It may be argued that under the provisions of the Public of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any
Land Act the applicant immediate predecessor in interest would existing right, grant lease, or concession at the time
have been entitled to a decree of registration of the lot had they of the inauguration of the Government established
applied for its registration; and that he, having purchased or under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the
acquired it, the right of his immediate predecessor in interest to a
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 5

exception of public agricultural land, shall not be For cultivated land, 20 years, uninterrupted, is enough. For
alienated . . ." uncultivated, 30.
● Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at
2. Carino vs. Insular Government, GR. No. 2869 any such proceedings against him or his father ever was
Full text: GR No. 2869 made.
● Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.
FACTS: Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the ● There must be a presumption against the government
land lies filed for writ of error because the CFI and SC dismissed when a private individual claims property as his or her
his petition for application. For more than 50 years before the own. It went so far as to say that the lands will be deemed
Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he and his ancestors had held the private absent contrary proof.
land as recognized owners by the Igorots. (grandfather maintain
fences for holding cattle>father had cultivated parts and used 3. Director of Lands vs. CA GR No. 112567, February 7, 2000
parts for pasturing cattle>he used it for pasture). Full text: GR No. 112567
● 1893-1894 & 1896-1897: he made an application but with
no avail FACTS: Respondent Aquilino Cariñ o filed a petition for
● 1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law registration for Lot 6 which is a sugar land claimed to be owned by
and the lands were registered to him but process only his mother of whom after she died he became the administrator of
established possessory title the property on behalf of his brothers and sisters. By virtue of a
Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered, deed of extrajudicial settlement, he became the sole owner of the
because the Philippine Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903, excepts property. Report from the land investigator showed that the lot is
the Province of Benguet among others from its operation agricultural in nature. Respondent claims that the improvements
ISSUE: Whether or not Carino has ownership and is entitled to introduced were in the form of bamboo clumps, sugarcane and
registration. mango trees with the house of the tenant; that the land is free from
HELD: YES. Petition Granted. claim and conflict and is not covered by existing public land
● Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not application and no patent or title has been issued to it; that the
always, public land. respondent is on continuous, open and exclusive possession of the
● Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to land as inherited from his deceased mother. Respondent is the sole
produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show witness for his petition and the only oppositor is the Bureau of
that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." Lands. The court granted the petition of the respondent. The
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 6

petitioner filed a review for certiorari contending that the predecessor-in-interest occupied the land under the condition laid
respondent failed to submit proof of his fee simple title and has down by law, he can only establish his possession of the land from
not overthrown the presumption that the land is a portion of the 1949. Respondent failed to prove his muniment of title for the
public domain belonging to the state. registration of the land under the Registration Act with failure to
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent established proof of his present convincing and positive proof of his continuous, open,
muniment of title to merit registration of land in his favor? uninterrupted and notorious occupation of lot 6 in the concept of
HELD: The petition of the respondent is covered by the Land an owner for at least 30 years.
Registration Act providing that a person alleging in his petition or
application ownership in fee simple must present muniments of 4. Republic vs. Dela Paz, GR No. 171631, November 15, 2010
title to substantiate his claim of ownership, presenting evidence of Full text: GR No. 171631
his possession in the concept of an owner in a manner and number
of years required by law. The manner shall be open, continuous, FACTS: RTC granted respondents’ application for registration and
exclusive, and notorious possession of the property known as confirmation of title over a parcel of land located in Barangay
agricultural land of the public domain for 30 years preceding the Ibayo, Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila. Such decision was affirmed
filing of application for confirmation (Commonwealth Act No. by the CA. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari. Respondents
141). Possession of public land however long never confers title alleged that they acquired the subject property, which is an
upon the possessor unless occupant of the same is under claim of agricultural land, by virtue of Salaysay ng Pagkakaloob dated June
ownership for the required period. Even in the absence of 18, 1987, executed by their parents, who earlier acquired the said
opposition the court can deny registration of land under the property from their deceased parent Alejandro dela Paz by virtue
Torrens System on ground that an applicant failed to establish his of a "Sinumpaang Pahayag sa Paglilipat sa Sarili ng mga Pag-aari
ownership by a fee simple on the property sought to be registered. ng Namatay” dated March 10, 1979. In their application,
The respondent only traced his own possession in the land in 1949 respondents claimed that they are co-owners of the subject parcel
by virtue of extrajudicial settlement and order and at the same of and and they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, open,
time he filed his application for registration in 1975 thus he was in public, adverse possession of the same, in the concept of owner
possession of said land only for 26 years. His mere allegation that since they acquired it in 1987. Respondents further averred that
his mother was in possession of the land since 1911 is self-serving by way of tacking of possession, they, through their predecessors-
and hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence. The tax receipts and in-interest have been in open, public, adverse, continuous, and
tax declaration he offered as evidence do not substantiate clear uninterrupted possession of the same, in the concept of an owner
proof of ownership. Thus, with his failure to prove that his even before June 12, 1945, or for a period of more than 50 years
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 7

since the filing of the application of registration with the trial

court. They maintained that the subject property is classified as 5. Republic vs. CA GR No. L-43938, April 15, 1988
alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Petitioner Full text: GR No. L-43938
opposed the application for registration on several grounds, one of
which is that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in- FACTS: These cases arose from the application for registration of a
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious parcel of land filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose de la Rosa on his
possession and occupation of the land in question for a period of own behalf and on behalf of his three children, Victoria, Benjamin
not less than thirty 30 years. and Eduardo. The land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents, by themselves or through Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-225009.
their predecessors-in-interest, have proven that they possessed According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa
and occupied the subject land since June 12, 1945 or earlier. and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime
HELD: No. Respondents’ earliest evidence can be traced back to a Alberto, respectively, in 1964.
tax declaration issued in the name of their predecessors-in- The application was separately opposed by Benguet Consolidated,
interest only in the year 1949. At best, respondents can only prove Inc. as to Lots 1-5, Atok Big Wedge Corporation, as to Portions of
possession since said date. What is required is open, exclusive, Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9, and by the Republic of the Philippines,
continuous and notorious possession by respondents and their through the Bureau of Forestry Development, as to lots 1-9.
predecessors-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, In support of the application, both Balbalio and Alberto testified
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Respondents failed to explain why, that they had acquired the subject land by virtue of prescription
despite their claim that their predecessors-in interest have Balbalio claimed to have received Lots 1-5 from her father shortly
possessed the subject properties in the concept of an owner even after the Liberation.
before June 12, 1945, it was only in 1949 that their predecessors- Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug mineral claim
in-interest started to declare the same for purposes of taxation. covering Lots 1-5 was sold to it on September 22, 1934, by the
Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who located the claim in
conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land September 1909 and recorded it on October 14, 1909. From the
when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that the date of its purchase, Benguet had been in actual, continuous and
disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes exclusive possession of the land in concept of owner, as evidenced
in the names of the applicants for registration or of their by its construction of adits, its affidavits of annual assessment, its
predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. geological mappings, geological samplings and trench side cuts,
They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership. and its payment of taxes on the land.
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 8

For its part, Atok alleged that a portion of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of
6-9 were covered by the Emma and Fredia mineral claims located their mining claim,” is correct.
by Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930, and recorded on HELD: No. Our holding is that Benguet and Atok have exclusive
January 2, 1931, in the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. rights to the property in question by virtue of their respective
These claims were purchased from these locators on November 2, mining claims which they validly acquired before the Constitution
1931, by Atok, which has since then been in open, continuous and of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain
exclusive possession of the said lots as evidenced by its annual except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the
assessment work on the claims, such as the boring of tunnels, and time of its adoption. The land was not and could not have been
its payment of annual taxes thereon. transferred to the private respondents by virtue of acquisitive
The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its objection, prescription, nor could its use be shared simultaneously by them
arguing that the land sought to be registered was covered by the and the mining companies for agricultural and mineral purposes.
Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under Proclamation No. 217 It is true that the subject property was considered forest land and
dated February 16, 1929. Moreover, by reason of its nature, it was included in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, but this did not
not subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and impair the rights already vested in Benguet and Atok at that time.
1973. Such rights were not affected either by the stricture in the
The trial court denied the application, holding that the applicants Commonwealth Constitution against the alienation of all lands of
had failed to prove their claim of possession and ownership of the the public domain except those agricultural in nature for this was
land sought to be registered. made subject to existing rights. The perfection of the mining claim
The applicants appealed to the respondent court, which reversed converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in
the trial court and recognized the claims of the applicant, but force removed it from the public domain. By such act, the locators
subject to the rights of Benguet and Atok respecting their mining acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even the
claims. In other words, the Court of Appeals affirmed the surface government, without need of any further act such as the purchase
rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the land had
reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of become the private property of the locators, they had the right to
their mining claims. Both Benguet and Atok have appealed to this transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and Atok. The Court of
Court, invoking their superior right of ownership. Appeals justified this by saying there is “no conflict of interest”
ISSUE: Whether respondent court’s decision, i.e. “the surface between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the
rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time sub-surface rights. This is rather doctrine, for it is a well-known
principle that the owner of piece of land has rights not only to its
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 9

surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above that once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to
it up to a reasonable height. Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be
classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, discontinued by the State to enable it to extract the minerals
subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. The land is
understand, especially in its practical application. thus converted to mineral land and may not be used by any private
The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and party, including the registered owner thereof, for any other
that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The purpose that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken
classification must be categorical; the land must be either therein, For the loss sustained by such owner, he is of course
completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the instant case, entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws or in
as already observed, the land which was originally classified as appropriate expropriation proceedings.
forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely
mineral — once the mining claims were perfected. As long as 6. Cruz vs. NCIP G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
mining operations were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, Full text: GR No. 135385
it did not cease to be so and become agricultural, even if only
partly so, because it was enclosed with a fence and was cultivated FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for
by those who were unlawfully occupying the surface. prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
This is an application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its name constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371,
implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not of private otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997
persons. The rule simply reserves to the State all minerals that (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The
may be found in public and even private land devoted to petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the
“agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or (for) any ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
purpose other than mining.” Thus, if a person is the owner of ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and
agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian
of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
said minerals without the permission of the State to which such ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution.
minerals belong. HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the
The flaw in the reasoning of the respondent court is in supposing Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that
that the rights over the land could be used for both mining and grants to the indigenous people or indigenous cultural
non-mining purposes simultaneously. The correct interpretation is communities ownership over the natural resources within their
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 10

ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the the subject properties in the concept of an owner for more than 30
ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted years, including that of its predecessors-in-interest.
by the IPRA to the indigenous cultural communities over the The Republic opposed the application stating that the tax
natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as declarations and receipts of tax payments, do not constitute
owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the
found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, land applied for or of its open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owner since
and exploitation. June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; that the claim of ownership in fee
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of simple on the basis of a Spanish title or grant may no longer be
the lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong availed of by the applicant because it failed to file an appropriate
to the indigenous cultural communities by native title, which is a application for registration in accordance with the provisions P.D.
concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal No. 892; and that the subject parcels of land are portions of the
grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines and are
possession by the indigenous cultural communities of their not subject to private appropriation.
ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not The MTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents. Petitioner
include the right to alienate the same. contends that a mere notation appearing in the survey plans of the
disputed properties showing that the subject lands had been
7. Republic vs. Tri-Plus Corporation, GR No. 150000, classified as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963 is not
September 26, 2006 sufficient to establish the nature and character of these lands.
Full text: GR No. 150000 Petitioner asserts that there should be a positive act on the part of
the government, such as a certification from the DENR, to prove
FACTS: On April 30, 1997 Tri-Plus Corporation filed with the MTC that the said lands are indeed alienable and disposable. Petitioner
an Application for Registration of Title over two parcels of land further contends that even if the subject properties were classified
designated as Lots 1061 and 1062 of the cadastral survey of as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, the law, nonetheless,
Consolacion, Cebu and located at Barangay Tayud, Consolacion. requires that such classification should have been made on June
Tri-Plus alleged that it is the owner in fee simple of the subject 12, 1945 or earlier.
parcels of land, including the improvements thereon, having ISSUE: Whether or not the lands in question are alienable or
acquired the same through purchase; and that it is in actual, disposable.
continuous, public, notorious, exclusive and peaceful possession of
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 11

HELD: No. Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, proper government agency to prove that the lands subject for
provides that the classification and reclassification of public lands registration are indeed alienable and disposable.
into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest land is the
prerogative of the Executive Department. Under the Regalian 8. Secretary of DENR vs. Yap, GR No. 167707 and 173775,
doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the October 8, 2008
public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any Full text: GR No. 167707
asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to
be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the FACTS: This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of
State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming that of the Regional Trial Court
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory
to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and
public domain. ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801
subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve.
Advance Plan stating in effect that the said properties are alienable Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an
and disposable. However, this is hardly the kind of proof required application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey
by law. To prove that the land subject of an application for of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition
registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.
of a positive act of the government such as a presidential The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, opposed the petition countering that Boracay Island was an
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass
legislative act or statute. The applicant may also secure a of lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available for
certification from the Government that the lands applied for are disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised
alienable and disposable. In the case at bar, while the Advance Forestry Code.
Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands Management ISSUE: Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are
Services of the DENR, the certification refers only to the technical automatically deemed agricultural land, therefore making these
correctness of the survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing lands alienable.
to do whatsoever with the nature and character of the property HELD: No. To prove that the land subject of an application for
surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a certification from the registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 12

of a positive act of the government such as a presidential predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous,
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and occupation of
investigative reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a the land for more than 30 years, thereby entitling him to the
legislative act or statute. judicial confirmation of his title.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is The application was granted by the RTC. However, the OSG for the
required. In keeping with the presumption of state ownership, the Republic appealed the judgment to the CA, which reversed the RTC
Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a positive Judgment.
act of the government, such as an official proclamation, Due to Malabanan’s intervening demise during the appeal in the
declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for CA, his heirs elevated the said decision to this Court through a
agricultural or other purposes. petition for review on certiorari. The petition was denied.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain Petitioners and the Republic filed Motions for Reconsideration.
belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted ISSUE: (1) What are the classifications of public lands? (2)
right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of Whether or not petitioners were able to prove that the property
such patrimony. was an alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
HELD:
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private (1.) Classifications of land according to ownership. Land, which is
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that an immovable property, may be classified as either of public
have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase dominion or of private ownership. Land is considered of public
or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public dominion if it either:
domain. (a) is intended for public use; or
(b) belongs to the State, without being for public use, and is
9. Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic, GR No. 179987, September intended for some public service or for the development of the
3, 2013 national wealth.
Full text: GR No. 179987 Land belonging to the State that is not of such character, or
although of such character but no longer intended for public use or
FACTS: Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration for public service forms part of the patrimonial property of the
covering the property he purchased from Eduardo Velazco, State. Land that is other than part of the patrimonial property of
claiming that the property formed part of the alienable and the State, provinces, cities and municipalities is of private
disposable land of the public domain, and that he and his ownership if it belongs to a private individual.
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 13

Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia), a legal concept requisite character and period of possession – possession and
first introduced into the country from the West by Spain through occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since
the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, all lands of the public June 12, 1945, or earlier – the land cannot be considered ipso jure
domain belong to the State. This means that the State is the source converted to private property even upon the subsequent
of any asserted right to ownership of land, and is charged with the declaration of it as alienable and disposable.
conservation of such patrimony.
All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are Prescription never began to run against the State, such that the
presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of land has remained ineligible for registration under Section 14(1)
the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown of the Property Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues
to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons. to be ineligible for land registration under Section 14(2) of the
A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such Property Registration Decree unless Congress enacts a law or the
reclassification, and the exclusive prerogative to classify public President issues a proclamation declaring the land as no longer
lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive Department, intended for public service or for the development of the national
not in the courts. If, however, public land will be classified as wealth.
neither agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or
when public land is no longer intended for public service or for the 10. Miners Association vs. Factoran, GR No. 98332, January 16,
development of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing 1995
the land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such Full text: GR No. 98332
conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the FACTS: Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order
President is duly authorized by law to that effect. Thus, until the Nos 211 and 279 in the exercise of her legislative powers. EO No.
Executive Department exercises its prerogative to classify or 211 prescribes the interim procedures in the processing and
reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President declares that approval of applications for the exploration, development and
the State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or utilization of minerals pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the
for the development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is 1987 Constitution. EO No. 279 authorizes the DENR Secretary to
applicable. negotiate and conclude joint-venture, co-production, or
(2.) Petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to establish production- sharing agreements for the exploration, development,
that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in and utilization of mineral resources.
possession of the land since June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 14

The issuance and the impeding implementation by the DENR of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other existing
Administrative Order Nos. 57 which declares that all existing mining laws are deemed repealed and, therefore, ceased to
mining leases or agreements which were granted after the operate as the governing law. In other words, in all other areas of
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution…shall be converted into administration and management of mineral lands, the provisions
production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other existing
effectivity of these guidelines.” and Administrative Order No. 82 mining laws, still govern. Section 7 of Executive Order No. 279
which provides that a failure to submit Letter of Intent and provides, thus:
Mineral Production-Sharing Agreement within 2 years from the Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463,
effectivity of the Department Administrative Order No. 57 shall as amended, other existing mining laws, and their
cause the abandonment of the mining, quarry, and sand and gravel implementing rules and regulations, or parts
claims, after their respective effectivity dates compelled the thereof, which are not inconsistent with the
Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc., an organization provisions of this Executive Order, shall continue in
composed of mining prospectors and claim owners and claim force and effect.
holders, to file the instant petition assailing their validity and Well -settled is the rule, however, that regardless of the
constitutionality before this Court. reservation clause, mining leases or agreements granted by the
ISSUE: Are the two Department Administrative Orders valid? State, such as those granted pursuant to Executive Order No. 211
HELD: Yes. Petitioner's insistence on the application of referred to this petition, are subject to alterations through a
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, as the governing law on reasonable exercise of the police power of the State. Accordingly,
the acceptance and approval of declarations of location and all the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not
other kinds of applications for the exploration, development, and be precluded by the constitutional restriction on non-impairment
utilization of mineral resources pursuant to Executive Order No. of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining
211, is erroneous. Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463,
pertains to the old system of exploration, development and as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police Power,
utilization of natural resources through "license, concession or being co-extensive with the necessities of the case and the
lease" which, however, has been disallowed by Article XII, Section demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs.
2 of the 1987 Constitution. By virtue of the said constitutional The passage of Executive Order No. 279 which superseded
mandate and its implementing law, Executive Order No. 279 which Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the DENR
superseded Executive Order No. 211, the provisions dealing on Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII, Section 2
"license, concession or lease" of mineral resources under of the 1987 Constitution.
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 15

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. shares; MBMI also owns 3,396 out of 10,000 shares of Patricia
11. Narra Nickel Mining vs. Redmont, GR No. 195580, January Louise Mining & Development Corporation;
28, 2015 ISSUES: (1) Is the Grandfather Rule applicable? (2) Whether
Full text: GR No. 195580 McArthur, Tesoro and Narra are Filipino nationals.
HELD:
FACTS: Redmont Consolidated Mines, Inc. (Redmont) filed before (1) YES. The instant case presents a situation which exhibits a
the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) of the DENR separate petitions for scheme employed by stockholders to circumvent the law, creating
denial of McArthur Mining, Inc. (McArthur), Tesoro and Mining a cloud of doubt in the Court’s mind. To determine, therefore, the
and Development, Inc. (Tesoro), and Narra Nickel Mining and actual participation, direct or indirect, of MBMI, the grandfather
Development Corporation (Narra) applications Mineral rule must be used.
Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) on the ground that they The Strict Rule or the Grandfather Rule pertains to the portion in
are not “qualified persons” and thus disqualified from engaging in Paragraph 7 of the 1967 SEC Rules which states, “but if the
mining activities through MPSAs reserved only for Filipino percentage of Filipino ownership in the corporation or
citizens. partnership is less than 60%, only the number of shares
McArthur Mining, Inc., is composed, among others, by Madridejos corresponding to such percentage shall be counted as of Philippine
Mining Corporation (Filipino) owning 5,997 out of 10,000 shares, nationality.” Under the Strict Rule or Grandfather Rule Proper, the
and MBMI Resources, Inc. (Canadian) owning 3,998 out of 10,000 combined totals in the Investing Corporation and the Investee
shares; MBMI also owns 3,331 out of 10,000 shares of Madridejos Corporation must be traced (i.e., “grandfathered”) to determine
Mining Corporation; the total percentage of Filipino ownership.
Tesoro and Mining and Development, Inc., is composed, among (2) NO. Petitioners McArthur, Tesoro and Narra are not Filipino
others, by Sara Marie Mining, Inc. (Filipino) owning 5,997 out of since MBMI, a 100% Canadian corporation, owns 60% or more of
10,000 shares, and MBMI Resources, Inc. (Canadian) owning 3,998 their equity interests. Such conclusion is derived from
out of 10,000 shares; MBMI also owns 3,331 out of 10,000 shares grandfathering petitioners’ corporate owners. xxx Noticeably, the
of Sara Marie Mining, Inc.; ownership of the “layered” corporations boils down to xxx group
Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation, is composed, wherein MBMI has joint venture agreements with, practically
among others, by Patricia Louise Mining & Development exercising majority control over the corporations mentioned. In
Corporation (Filipino) owning 5,997 out of 10,000 shares, and effect, whether looking at the capital structure or the underlying
MBMI Resources, Inc. (Canadian) owning 3,998 out of 10,000 relationships between and among the corporations, petitioners
are NOT Filipino nationals and must be considered foreign since
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 16

60% or more of their capital stocks or equity interests are owned the city of Parañ aque threatened to sell at public auction the
by MBMI. airport lands and buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate
tax deliquency. MIAA thus sought clarification of OGCC opinion no.
12. Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of 061. On August 9, 2001, the OGCC issued opinion no. 147 clarifying
Appeals, GR No. 155650, July 20, 2006 OGCC opinion no. 061. The OGCC pointed out that section 206 of
Full text: GR No. 155650 the local government code requires persons exempt from real
estate tax to show proof of exemption. The OGCC opined that
FACTS: Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) section 21 of the MIAA charter is the proof that MIAA is exempt
operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) complex from real estate tax.
in Parañ aque City under Executive Order No. 9303, otherwise ISSUE: Whether or not the airport lands and buildings are exempt
known as the revised charter of the MIAA. EO 903 was issued on from real estate tax.
July 21, 1983 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. HELD: Yes. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with
Subsequently EO 909 and 298 amended the MIAA charter as corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental
operator of the international operator, MIAA administers the land, functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the
improvements, and equipments within the NAIA complex. The only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers.
MIAA charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of Section 21 (10) of the introductory provisions of the
land, including the runways and buildings then under the Bureau administrative code defines a government instrumentality as
of Air Transportation. The MIAA charter provides that no portion follows:
of the land transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale
or any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of Sec 2 General terms defined
the Philippines. On March 21, 1997, the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel issued opinion no. 061. The OGCC opined that xxx
the local government code of 1991 withdraw the exemption from
real estate tax granted to MIAA under section 21 of the MIAA 10.) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the national
charter. Thus, MIAA negotiated with respondent city of Parañ aque government, not integrated within the department framework,
to pay the real estate tax imposed by the city. MIAA then paid vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with
some of the real estate tax already due. On July 17, 2001, the City some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and
of Parañ aque, through its city treasurer issued notices of levy and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter.
warrants of levy on the airport lands and buildings. The mayor of
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 17

When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate exercise such powers subject to such guidelines and limitations as
powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. the congress may provide.
Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or
non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality E. Social Justice and Human Rights
exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, Full text: 1987 Constitution - Article XIII
MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,
police authority and the surging of fees and charges. At the same *STUDY BREAK REMINDER: PLEASE DON’T FORGET TO TAKE
time, MIAA exercises all the powers of a corporation under the CARE OF YOURSELF!*
corporation law, in so far as these powers are not inconsistent
with the provisions of this executive order.

A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under section 133

(o) of the local government code, which states:

Sec 133 Common limitations on the taxing powers of the local

government units – Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise
of the taxing power of the provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:

xxx

o.) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the national government,

its agencies and instrumentalities and local government units.

Section 133 (0) recognizes the basic principles that local II. General Environmental Laws
governments cannot tax the national government, which A. Public Land Act CA 141
historically, merely delegated to the local governments the power Full text: Commonwealth Act No. 141 of 1936 AND AN ACT TO
to tax. While the 1987 constitution now includes taxation as one of AMEND COMPILE THE LAWS RELATIVE TO LANDS OF THE
the powers of the local governments, local governments may only PUBLIC DOMAIN
➔ Republic Act 10023
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 18

Full text: R.A. 10023 fourth lot was acquired by donation from the spouses Paulo G.
➔ Republic Act 10752 Macasaet, and Gabriela V. de Macasaet on February 26, 1941. A
Full text: R.A. 10752 new chapel stands on this lot.
The Bishop of Lucena has been in continuous possession and
1. Republic vs. IAC, GR No. 75042, November 29, 1988 enjoyment of Lots 1, 2, and 3 for a period of more than 52 years
Full text: GR No. 75042 through its predecessors-in-interest, and a total of 39 years with
respect to Lot 4.
FACTS: Properties Involved: (a) Lots 1, 2, and 3 situated in Barrio The Solicitor-General did not adduce evidence to support its
Masin, Municipality of Candelaria, Quezon Province. (b) Lot 4 opposition. When the case was submitted, the lower court ordered
located in Barrio Bucal (Taguan), Municipality of Candelaria, the registration of the lands together with the improvements
Quezon Province. thereon in the name of the ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
On February 2, 1979, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena filed an LUCENA.
application for confirmation of title for the aforementioned four On appeal, the Solicitor-General contends that the Bishop of
parcels of land. However, the Solicitor-General (in behalf of the Lucena is disqualified from owning alienable lands from the public
Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest domain because the constitution prohibits a private corporation
Development) filed an opposition to this application on April 20, from doing so.
1979, citing that the Bishop of Lucena did not have an imperfect ISSUE: Whether or not the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena, as a
title or title in fee simple to the parcels of land being applied for. corporation sole, is qualified to apply for confirmation of its title to
The Bishop of Lucena provided evidence that Lot 1 was acquired the four (4) parcels of land.
by the Roman Catholic Church thru Rev. Father Raymundo RULING: Yes, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena is qualified to
Esquenet by purchase from the spouses Atanacio Yranso and apply for the confirmation of its title to the 4 parcels of land.
Maria Coronado on October 20, 1928, while Lot 2 was acquired by The acquired lots are already private lands upon acquisition of the
purchase from the spouses Benito Maramot and Venancia church. Hence, the constitutional prohibition does not apply
Descaller on May 22, 1969. anymore.
The remaining portions of Lots 2 and 3 were already owned and Sec. 113 Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 allows a corporation sole to
possessed by the Roman Catholic Church even prior to the survey purchase and hold real estate and personal property for its church,
of the said lots in 1928. Lot 3 was also used by the church as a charitable, benevolent or educational purposes, and may receive
burial site since 1918. All 3 lots are declared for taxation purposes bequests or gifts for such purposes. A corporation sole is a special
in the name of the Roman Catholic Church as a cemetery site. The form of corporation usually associated with the clergy. It consists
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 19

of one person only, and his successors (who will always be one at a ISSUE: Whether or not the just compensation of the subject
time) are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal property is 243,000.00?
capacities and advantages which in their natural persons they HELD: Case at bar was remanded to RTC for determination of final
could not have had. just compensation of the property at controversy with an area of
The Bishop of Lucena has satisfactorily proved that they are in 138 square meters with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per
open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the subject lots in annum.
the concept of owner. 1. What is the evaluation used in arriving at the fair market value
The decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED. of the property?
- The RTC was ordered to cautiously make a determination
2. People vs. Regulto, GR. 202051, April 18, 2016 based on the parameters/standards set forth by law and
Full text: GR No. 202051 jurisprudence regarding just compensation.
2. When just compensation was computed?
FACTS: This is a review on certiorari filed by petitioners - Just compensation will be the fair market value of the
represented by the DPWH on July 16, 2012 regarding a property property at the time of filing for expropriation or at the
located at Mabel, Naga City, owned by the Spouses Regulto time of taking, whichever is earlier.
corresponding to a 300 square meter land covered by Transfer of 3. How just compensation was computed?
Title No 086-2010000231. The said property in controversy was - Just compensation will be the full and fair equivalent of the
acquired through a deed of absolute sale executed by Atty Julian R property taken from its owner.
Cortes of the spouses Bienvinido and Beatriz Santos in February
1994. 4. Which position was upheld by the court?
The subject land originated from a free patent title acquired under - The Court then decided that petitioners are still liable to
CA No 141. Hence, the petitioners alleged that respondents should pay just compensation to the respondents since there was
not receive just compensation for the property in controversy "taking.”
since under CA No 141, the government has a right of way of 20
meters which was increased to 60 meters by PD 635. 3. Danilo Bartolata vs. Republic, GR No. 223334, June 7, 2017
DPWH initially offered 243 000.00 or 1500 per square meters for Full text: GR No. 223334
the area affected which is 162 square meters but subsequently
dismissed the offer after learning that the affected land is part of FACTS: Petitioner Danilo Bartolata acquired ownership over a 400
the land acquired through Free Patent Title. square meter parcel of land identified as Lot 5, Blk. 1, Phase 1, AFP
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 20

Officer's Village, Taguig, Metro Manila by virtue of an Order of HELD: The easement of right of way in favor of the government
Award from the Bureau of Lands dated December 14, 1987. subsists despite the enactment of PD 2004 Resolving the first
Sometime in 1997, respondents acquired 223 square meters of issue, the Court rejects petitioner's claim that the subject property
petitioner's property for the development of the Metro Manila is no longer subject to the 60 meter width easement of right of
Skyway Project. The parties agreed that in exchange for the way in favor of the government.
acquisition, petitioner would be paid just compensation for the First, no less than the Order of Award granting petitioner title over
appraised value of the property to be fixed for the entire affected the subject property reads that the parcel of land conferred to him
area by the Municipal Appraisal Committee of Taguig, Metro is subject to the restrictions contained under Sec. 109-114 of CA
Manila. 141, which necessarily includes the easement provided in Sec. 112.
Respondents then argued that pursuant to Section 112 of Notably, petitioner was awarded the subject property in 1987,
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141) the government is entitled while PD 2004, which allegedly removed all encumbrances and
to an easement of right of way not exceeding 60 meters in width, restrictions from awarded properties, was signed into law much
without need of payment for just compensation, save for the value earlier in 1985. This alone raises suspicion on the applicability of
of improvements existing. PD 2004 to the subject property.
Further upholding the government's right to enforce against Second, the Court finds no reversible error in the R TC and CA's
petitioner's property the easement for public highways without interpretation of the coverage of PD 2004 and RA 730. The title of
cost, the CA granted respondents' counterclaim on appeal. The CA RA 730 itself supports the rulings of the courts a quo that the laws
noted that the portion of petitioner's property that was used by petitioner relied upon only cover the sale of public lands for
respondents corresponds to the widths of 13.92 meters and 13.99 residential purposes and to qualified applicants without public
meters, well within the 60-meter limit under CA 141. Given that auction.
respondents never exceeded the threshold width, and that REPUBLIC ACT NO. 730 - AN ACT TO PERMIT THE
petitioner never established that there were improvements in his SALE WITHOUT PUBLIC AUCTION OF PUBLIC
property that were affected, the CA held that petitioner is not LANDS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
entitled to any form of compensation. Consequently, the CA FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO QUALIFIED
ordered him to return the partial payment made, lest he be APPLICANTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
unjustly enriched by respondents' use of the legal easement that It can readily be inferred from the title of RA 730 that the definite
under the law should have been free of charge. ambit of the law could not be extended to sales of public lands via
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject property owned by petitioner is public auction, through which mode of disposition petitioner
subject easement of right of way in favor of the government acquired the subject property. Consequently, when RA 730 was
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 21

amended by PD 2004 to the effect of removing encumbrances and

restrictions on purchased properties without public auction, the
petitioner could not have benefitted from the same.
Lastly, even the contents of RA 730 belie petitioners' claims. The
foremost section of the law reads: Section 1. Notwithstanding the
provisions of sections sixty-one and sixty-seven of Commonwealth
Act Numbered One hundred forty-one, as amended by Republic
Act Numbered Two hundred ninety-three, any Filipino citizen of
legal age who is not the owner of a home lot in the municipality or
city in which he resides and who has in good faith established his
residence on a parcel of the public land of the Republic of the
Philippines which is not needed for the public service, shall be
given preference to purchase at a private sale of which reasonable Tawa ka nalang muna. Wala ako mahanap na digest eh.
notice shall be given to him not more than one thousand square
meters at a price to be fixed by the Director of Lands with the
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. It
shall be an essential condition of this sale that the occupants has 6. Gauvain vs. CA, GR No. 97973, March 27, 1992
constructed his house on the land and actually resided therein. Full text: GR No. 97973
Ten per cent of the purchase price shall be paid upon the approval
of the sale and the balance may be paid in full, or in ten equal FACTS: In this case, petitioners Gauvain and Bernadita Benzonan
annual instalments. want a review on the decision made by herein respondent Court of
Appeals – sustaining the right of private respondent Pe to
4. Francisca Taar vs. Caludio Lawan, GR No. 190922, October repurchase a parcel of land sold to petitioners. It started when
11, 2017 respondent Pe was granted a parcel of lands acquired through free
Full text: GR No. 190922 patent, however, Pe then mortgaged the lot to DPB; developed it
Digest: Taar v. Lawan into a commercial complex. Failing to pay the mortgaged, DBP
foreclosed the lot; Pe leased it to DBP; the former failed to redeem
5. Consorcia vs. CA, GR No. L-46955, February 27, 1989 such property within one year period; DBP sold it to petitioners
Full text: GR No. L-46955 Benzonan. Then Pe filed a complaint to repurchase. The RTC and
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 22

CA affirmed and granted the claim to repurchase. Petitioners filed 7. Capistrano vs. Limcuando, GR No. 152413, February 13,
a complaint against CA, alleging, among other issues, that the latter 2009
erred in its decision re. the five-year period in foreclosure sale by Full text: GR No. 152413
not relying on the doctrine in Monge v. Angeles and instead relied Digest: Capistrano v. Limcuando
on the ruling in Belisario v. Intermediate Appellate Court which
was applied retroactively. Hence, the issue. 8. Heirs of Zosimo Maravilla vs. Tupas, G.R. No. 192132,
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Court of Appeals erred in its September 14, 2016
decision regarding the foreclosure sale by not applying the Full text: GR No. 192132
doctrinal law ruled in Monge v. Angeles and instead applied
retroactively the ruling in the case Belisario v. IAC? FACTS: Privaldo, along with the other heirs of the late Asisclo,
HELD: Yes. At the time of the foreclosure sale issue, the prevailing has maintained their occupation and possession of the subject
jurisprudence was still the Monge case, hence, it is the doctrine property located in Boracay island. The heirs of the late Zosimo
that should be applied in the case at bar. However, the respondent claimed ownership over 10,000 square meters of said property
court applied the rulings in the Belisario case in 1988 thereby by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated February 8, 1975 between
rendering a decision in favor of the private respondent. But the Zosimo and Asiclo. The heirs of Zosimo filed a case for quieting of
Supreme Court sustained the claims of the petitioners. The Court title with recovery of possession and the RTC ruled in their favor.
said that though they are bound by decisions pursuant to Article 8 While the motion for execution was pending, the Supreme Cou
of the Civil Code, the Court also stressed that: “while our decisions declared Boracay island as government property. The CA ordered
form part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the decision of the RTC granting the motion for execution as null
the Civil Code which states that “laws shall have no retroactive and void and ruled that the Boracay Decision was a supervening
effect unless the contrary is provided””. Moreover, the Court event and the RTC erred in not declaring null and void the sale of
emphasized that “when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a unregistered land considering that Boracay island has been
different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied classified as an inalienable land. The heirs of Zosimo that the
prospectively xxx.” Therefore, respondents cannot rely on the Boracay Decision is not a supervening event and the settled
Belisario ruling because it should be applied prospectively and not dispute between the parties as to who has the better right to the
the contrary. CA erred in its decision regarding this case. property is distinct and separate from the issue of titling sought in
Wherefore, such decision was reversed and set aside. the Boracay decision.
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 23

ISSUE: Whether private individuals may acquire vested right of

ownership over the Boracay island, considering that they have 10. Republic vs. Zurbaran, G.R. No. 164408, March 24, 2014
been in open and continuous possession for several years. Full text: GR No. 164408
HELD: NO. In the present case, the basis of Zosimo’s claim over the
subject property is the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land. This FACTS: Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation filed with
Deed of Sale has been acknowledged and adjudged by the RTC to RTC an application for original registration of land. Director of
be binding between the parties and in fact, has attained finality. Lands opposed it arguing that applicant and its predecessor in
The SC in the Boracay Decision ruled that the entire island of interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious
Boracay as state owned except for lands already covered by possession and occupation of land since June 12, 1945.
existing titles. Therefore, Boracay island, being owned by the State, RTC and CA ruled in favor of Zurbaran. On appeal to SC, the
can only be declared or made subject to private ownership by the Republic appealed arguing that Zurbaran failed to establish the
government. Only the government can determine the manner in time when the land became alienable and disposable, which is
which the Boracay island should be disposed of or conveyed to crucial in determining whether Zuburan acquired the land by
private individuals, pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine which prescription.
dictates that all lands not clearly within private ownership shall be ISSUE: What are the substantive elements in filing an application
presumed to be part of the public domain belonging to the State. for original registration of land?
Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, HELD: The requirements depend on what basis the application
either by purchase or by grant, remain part of the inalienable was filed. The following are the bases for application:
public domain. In this case, at the time of the sale of the subject 1. On the basis of possession, wherein you need to show the
property, the late Asisclo had no right to sell a property that has following:
not been declared alienable by the State. One cannot dispose of a a. The land is alienable and disposable property of the public
thing he does not own. domain (Example of non-alienable lands are forests, lakeshores,
Therefore, the “Sale of Unregistered Land” is void ab initio for etc)
having an object outside the commerce of men. b. the applicant and its predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
9. Republic vs. Valentina Espinosa, GR No. 186603, April 5, the land under a bona fide claim of ownership; and
2017 reversion c. the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have possessed
Full text: GR No. 186603 and occupied the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier
Digest: Republic-vs-Espinosa.pdf
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 24

Note: Land need not be declared alienable and disposable as of declared by law either to be the patrimonial property of the State,
June 12, 1945 or earlier. It is sufficient that property is alienable or to be no longer intended for public service or the development
and disposable at the time of application (Malaban vs. Republic) of the national wealth.
2. On the basis of prescription, wherein you need to prove the
following: 11. Republic vs. Rosila Roche, G.R. No. 175846, July 6, 2010
a. Land is alienable and disposable, and patrimonial property Full text: GR No. 175846
b. continuous possession of land for at least 10 years in good faith
and with just title OR 30 years regardless of good faith or bad faith. 12. People vs.Tensuan, G.R. No., 171136, October 23, 2013
c. Land is converted or declared as patrimonial property of the Full text: GR No. 171136
State at the beginning of 10-year or 30-year period of possession.
Only patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by FACTS:In 1998, Aruelo representing Tensuan filed an application
prescription (Article 1113 of Civil Code). Property of public for registration of Lots. 1109-A and 1109-Band stated that these
dominion, if not longer intended for public use or service, shall lands were inherited by her father Felix Capco and alleged as well
form part of patrimonial property of State. (Article 422 of Civil that they had been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
Code) possession and occupation of the said lands under a bona fide
Here, there must be an express declaration by the State that the claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 and many years earlier. In
public dominion property is no longer intended for public use, 1998, Tensuan filed a motion to withdraw Lot 1109-B from the
service or the development of the national wealth or that the application and to amend such because a portion of the said lot
property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such was a legal easement and MeTC granted Tensuan’s motion. The
express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or Republic, through the OSG filed an opposition to Tensuan’s
disposable, remains property of the public dominion, Such application arguing that neither Tensuan nor her predecessor-in-
declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress interest had been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly possession and occupation of the said lands under a bona fide
authorized by law. claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 and the subject property
In the case at bar, the application did not state when their form part of the public domain not subject of private
possession and occupation commenced (no allegation that they appropriation. The Laguna Lake Development Authority also filed
have been in possession since June 12, 1945) and the duration. So its opposition which according to them the land sought to be
the application is based on prescription. Here, there is no evidence registered remains inalienable and indisposable in the absence of
showing that the land in question was within an area expressly declaration by the Director of Lands as required by law. In 2004
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 25

MeTC granted Tensuan’s Application for Registration and was Full text: PD No. 1121
affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tensuan has complied the requirement of C. Philippine Environmental Policy PD 1151
an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and Full text: PD 1151 Philippine Environmental Policy
occupation of the said lands under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945. D. Philippine Environmental Code PD 1152
HELD: No, Tensuan has not complied with the requirement for Full text: Presidential Decree No. 1152, s. 1977
possession and occupation of said lands. It is not enough for the
PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable.
The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR
Secretary had approved the land classification and released the E. Reorganization Act of DENR EO 192 1987
land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the Full text: Executive Order No. 192, s. 1987
land subject of the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or 1. National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission RA
CENRO. The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian 3931 (PD 984)
of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as Full text: Presidential Decree No. 984
alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have attached an
official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the 2. Shell Philippines vs. Jalos, G.R. 179918, September 8 2010
land alienable and disposable. Given the lack of evidence that the Full text: GR No. 179918
subject property is alienable and disposable, it becomes
unnecessary for us to determine the other issue in this case, i.e., FACTS: Petitioner Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and the
whether Tensuan has been in open, continuous, exclusive and Republic of the Philippines entered into Service Contract 38 for
notorious possession and occupation; and that such possession is the exploration and extraction of petroleum in northwestern
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or Palawan. Two years later, Shell discovered natural gas in the
earlier. Regardless of the character and length of her possession of Camago-Malampaya area and pursued its development of the well
the subject property, Tensuan cannot acquire registrable title to under the Malampaya Natural Gas Project. This entailed the
inalienable public land. construction and installation of a pipeline, which spanned 504
kms. and crossed the Oriental Mindoro Sea, from Shell’s
B. National Environmental Council PD 1121 production platform to its gas processing plant in Batangas. On
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 26

May 19, 2003, respondents, 78 individuals, claiming that they An agent is a person who binds himself to render some service or
were all subsistence fishermen from the coastal barangay of to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the
Bansud, Oriental Mindoro, filed a complaint for damages against consent or authority of the latter. The Essence of an agency is the
Shell on the ground that their livelihood was adversely affected by agent’s ability to represent his principal and bring about business
the construction and operation of Shell’s natural gas pipeline. Shell relations between the latter and third persons.
moved for dismissal of the complaint alleging that the Pollution Shell’s primary obligation under the Service Contract 38 is not to
Adjudication Board (PAB), not the trial court, has primary represent the Philippine government for the purpose of
jurisdiction over pollution cases and actions for related damages transacting business with third persons, rather, its contractual
and that it could not be sued pursuant to the doctrine of state commitment is to develop and manage petroleum operations on
immunity without the State’s consent on the basis that it merely behalf of the state. Hence, Shell is not an agent of the Philippine
serves as an agent of the Philippine government in the government but a provider of services, technology and financing
development of the Malampaya gas reserves through Service for the Malampaya Natural Gas Project; it is not immune from suit
Contract 38. and it may be sued for claims even without the State’s consent.
The RTC dismissed the complaint ruling that it should be brought And as evident in the stipulations agreed upon by the parties
first to the PAB. CA reversed RTC’s order upon respondent’s under Service Contract 38, the Phil. Government recognized that
petition for certiorari. Shell moved for reconsideration of the CA’s Shell could be sued in relation to the project.
decision but the same was denied. Hence, Shell filed this petition
for review under Rule 45. 3. Maynilad vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No. 202897, August 6,
ISSUE: Can Shell invoke state immunity, as agent of the Republic of 2019
the Philippines? Full text: G.R. No. 202897
RULING: No. Shell cannot invoke state immunity because it is not Digest: Maynilad-Water-Services-v-Secretary-of-Denr.pdf
an agent of the Republic of the Philippines. It is just a service
contractor for the exploration and development of one of the 4. Summit One vs. PAB, GR No. 215029, July 5, 2017
country’s natural gas reserves. While the Republic appointed Shell Full text: GR No. 215029
as the exclusive party to conduct petroleum operations in the
Camago-Malampayo area under the State’s full control and
supervision, it does not follow that Shell has become the State’s
“agent” within the meaning of the law.
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 27

Regional Trial Court of San Pedro Laguna, Branch 93, for the
following reliefs: (1) a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order, ordering the defendants to refrain from
implementing or enforcing Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995; (2) an
order requiring Hon. Municipal Mayor Calixto R. Cataquiz to issue
a business permit for the operation of a lotto outlet; and (3) an
order annulling or declaring as invalid Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T.
1995.
On February 10, 1997, the respondent judge, Francisco Dizon
Pañ o, promulgated his decision enjoining the petitioners from
implementing or enforcing resolution or Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T.
1995.
Wala ako mahanap eh. Break ka muna! Drink your water ISSUE: WON the local government may deny the operation of lotto
hooman! in the said locality.
F. Local Government and Environmental Laws HELD: NO. The ordinance, Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 of the
1. Lina vs. Pano, GR No. 129093, August 30, 2001 Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Laguna, merely states the “objection”
Full text: GR No. 129093 of the council to the operation of lotto. It is but a mere policy
statement on the part of the local council, which is not self-
FACTS: On December 29, 1995, respondent Tony Calvento was executing. Nor could it serve as a valid ground to prohibit the
appointed agent by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office operation of the lotto system in the province of Laguna. Even
(PCSO) to install Terminal OM 20 for the operation of lotto. He petitioners admit this in their petition. As a policy statement
asked Mayor Calixto Cataquiz, Mayor of San Pedro, Laguna, for a expressing the local government’s objection to the lotto, such
mayor’s permit to open the lotto outlet. This was denied by Mayor resolution is valid. This is part of the local government’s autonomy
Cataquiz in a letter dated February 19, 1996. The ground for said to air its views which may be contrary to that of the national
denial was an ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan government’s. However, this freedom to exercise contrary views
of Laguna entitled Kapasiyahan Blg. 508, T. 1995 which was issued does not mean that local governments may actually enact
on September 18, 1995. As a result of this resolution of denial, ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by Congress. Given
respondent Calvento filed a complaint for declaratory relief with this premise, the assailed resolution in this case could not and
prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining should not be interpreted as a measure or ordinance prohibiting
order. In the said complaint, respondent Calvento asked the
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 28

the operation of lotto. To conclude our resolution of the first issue, Full text: GR No. 162243
respondent mayor of San Pedro cannot avail of Kapasiyahan
Bilang 508, Taon 1995, of the Provincial Board of Laguna as FACTS: PICOP filed with the DENR an application to have its
justification to prohibit lotto in his municipality. For said Timber License Agreement (TLA) No. 43converted into an
resolution is nothing but an expression of the local legislative unit IFMA.PICOP filed before the (RTC) City a Petition for Mandamus
concerned. The Board’s enactment, like spring water, could not against then DENR Sec Alvarez for unlawfully refusing and/or
rise above its source of power, the national legislature. neglecting to sign and execute the IFMA contract of PICOP even as
The game of lotto is a game of chance duly authorized by the the latter has complied with all the legal requirements for the
national government through an Act of Congress. Republic Act automatic conversion of TLA No. 43, as amended, into an IFMA.
1169, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 42, is the law which The cause of action of PICOP Resources, Inc. (PICOP) in its Petition
grants a franchise to the PCSO and allows it to operate the for Mandamus with the trial court is clear: the government is
lotteries. This statute remains valid today. While lotto is clearly a bound by contract, a 1969 Document signed by then President
game of chance, the national government deems it wise and Ferdinand Marcos, to enter into an Integrated Forest Management
proper to permit it. Hence, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agreement (IFMA) with PICOP.
Laguna, a local government unit, cannot issue a resolution or an ISSUE: Whether the 1969 Document is a contract recognized
ordinance that would seek to prohibit permits. Stated otherwise, under the non-impairment clause by which the government may
what the national legislature expressly allows by law, such as lotto, be bound (for the issuance of the IFMA)
a provincial board may not disallow by ordinance or resolution. HELD: NO. Our definitive ruling in Oposa v. Factoran that a timber
In our system of government, the power of local government units license is not a contract within the purview of the non-impairment
to legislate and enact ordinances and resolutions is merely a clause is edifying. We declared:
delegated power coming from Congress. Ours is still a unitary Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or
form of government, not a federal state. Being so, any form of rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract,
autonomy granted to local governments will necessarily be limited property or a property right protected by the due
and confined within the extent allowed by the central authority. process clause of the Constitution.
Besides, the principle of local autonomy under the 1987
Constitution simply means “decentralization.” It does not make 3. Cordillera Global Network vs. Paje, G.R. No. 215988, April
local governments sovereign within the state. 10, 2019
Full text: G.R. No. 215988
2. DENR vs. PICOP, GR No. 162243, November 29, 2006 Digest: Cordillera-Global-Network-v-SM.pdf
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 29

4. Republic vs. Provincial government of Palawan, G.R. No.

170867, December 4, 2018
Full text: G.R. No. 170867
Digest: Republic-of-the-Philippines-v-Palawan.pdf
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 30

ASSESSMENT Q&A: ➔ The Pollution Adjudication Board chaired by the DENR

1. What is the Public Trust Doctrine in environmental law? Secretary is a separate office under the DENR. In general,
➔ The Public Trust Doctrine, holds that certain natural the PAB has exclusive jurisdiction over the adjudication of
resources, like water, cannot be owned privately due to its pollution cases, including the imposition of administrative
inherent importance to the society as a whole. As such, the sanctions. However, the Orders of the SENR are different
state is merely a trustee which manages these natural from the issuances of the PAB. While under its 1997 rules,
resources for the benefit of the trust principal, which is the the PAB had jurisdiction to impose the fine or
current and future generations. Those who acquire rights in administrative sanction on all cases of pollution, Section 28
these natural resources hold these rights subject to the of the 2009 Clean Water Act bestows upon the Secretary,
trust and could not assert vested rights to use these rights upon recommendation of the PAB, in cases of commission
in a manner harmful to the trust. (Maynilad vs. Secretary of of prohibited acts under and violations of the Clean Water
DENR, G.R. No. 202897, August 6, 2019) Act, the power to impose fines, order the closure,
suspension of development or construction, or cessation of
2. Corporation ABC was charged by the DENR with violation of the operations, or, where appropriate disconnection of water
Clean Water Act. The Pollution Adjudication Board recommended supply.
a fine of 1M pesos against ABC Corporation which was approved ➔ The role of the PAB in the imposition of fines for violation
and issued by the DENR Secretary. ABC Corporation appealed the of Section 28 of the Clean Water Act is restricted to a
decision to the Court of Appeals via rule 43. Decide with legal basis recommendation of penalty. The execution of punitive
in not more than 5 sentences. power thereunder remains with the SENR. This, however,
➔ The appeal must be dismissed for prematurity for ABC should not be taken to mean that the recommendatory role
Corporation’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies at of the PAB is dispensable. Its technical expertise in
the level of the DENR. The DENR Secretary’s Orders are pollution cases such as the one at hand remains crucial, and
appealable to the Office of the President and not to the this expertise, the SENR definitely did not disregard.
Court of Appeals. In the instant case, what is being appealed
by ABC Corporation is the order of the Secretary and not of 3. The Malampaya Natural gas project is located 80 kms from the
the PAB. Hence. the appeal must be dismissed. (Maynilad main island of the province of Palawan, the closest LGU unit.
vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No. 202897, August 6, 2019) Palawan filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief against the National
Government asserting its share in the proceeds of the utilization of
★ NOTES natural resources in the Malampaya project alleging that pipelines
1I - Natural Resources and Environmental Law 31

passed through the province. Decide with legal basis in not more ----------END OF PART 1----------
than 5 sentences.
➔ The Petition must be dismissed. The Local Government
Code and the Constitution provides that LGU shall be
entitled to equitable share of the proceeds of utilization of
national wealth within their respective areas. In the instant
case, the Malampaya gas project was not shown to be
within the territorial jurisdiction of Palawan. Neither can
Palawan assert share in the products passing through the
pipelines since the natural resource was not extracted
within its territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the Petition must
be dismissed. (Republic vs. Provincial government of
Palawan, G.R. No. 170867)

★ NOTES
➔ Constitution, Art. X Section 7. Local governments shall be
entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the
utilization and development of the national wealth within
their respective areas, in the manner provided by law,
including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of
direct benefits.
➔ LGC, Section 289. Share in the Proceeds from the
Development and Utilization of the National Wealth. - Local
government units shall have an equitable share in the
proceeds derived from the utilization and development of
the national wealth within their respective areas, including
sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct
benefits