22. Metro Iloilo Water District vs.

CA, 454 SCRA 249

Petitioner is a water district. Its service areas encompass the entire territorial areas of
Iloilo City and the Municipalities of Ma-asin, Cabanatuan, Santa Barbara and Pavia.

Contentions: that as provided by law, the petitioner as a Water District was authorized
to adopt laws and regulations governing the drilling, maintenance and operation of
wells within its boundaries

That by virtue of said authorization, the Board of Directors for the petitioner
promulgated its "Rules Governing Ground Water Pumping and spring Development
Within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Metro Iloilo Water District,

“Except when the use of water is for single family domestic use, no person,
natural or juridical shall abstract or withdraw ground water and appropriate the waters
from springs within the jurisdiction of the District without first securing a water permit
from the Council and no person shall engage in the business of drilling wells”

That the respondent has abstracted or withdrawn ground water within the territorial
jurisdiction of the petitioner without first securing a Water Permit from the National
Water Resources Council nor had its well driller registered as such with said council,
and sold said water so extracted to commercial and other consumers in Iloilo City,
within petitioner's service area; constitutes interference with or deterioration of water
quality or the natural flow of surface or ground water supply

Petition is dismissed because it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of National Water

Resources Council

In the case at bar, what is involved is not only the alleged violation of the grantee's
right but a question of whether or not the respondents have equal right to the
appropriation, utilization and exploitation of water rights

Petitioner insists that there is no occasion to invoke the original jurisdiction of the
Water Council in this case since there is no question of appropriation, exploitation,
utilization, development, control, conservation, and protection of water. The only
dispute, according to petitioner, pertains to the act of private respondents in extracting
ground water from the territory of petitioner as a water district and selling the same
within its service area, or more succinctly, private respondents' interference with the
granted right of petitioner over ground water within its territorial jurisdiction.30

Private respondents, for their part, staunchly invoke Article 88 of the Water Code,
which grants original jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the appropriation,
utilization, exploitation, development, control, conservation and protection of waters to
the Water Council

Issue: whether or not private respondents' extraction and sale of ground water within
petitioner's service area violated petitioner's rights as a water district and is under the
jurisdiction of the RTC
Ruling: The Court reiterated the case of Amistoso v. Ong39, petitioner had an approved
Water Rights Grant from the Department of Public Works, Transportation and
Communications. The trial court was not asked to grant petitioner the right to use but
to compel private respondents to recognize that right. Thus, we declared that the trial
court's jurisdiction must be upheld where the issue involved is not the settlement of a
water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of a right to water use for which a permit
was already granted.

23. Amistoso vs. Ong, 130 SCRA 228

Allegations in the complaint are explicit regarding the claim of the right of plaintiff over the water
passing through his land.

that plaintiff (now petitioner) and defendant Epifania Neri, (one of the herein private respondents) are
the owners of adjoining parcels of agricultural land situated in Cauayanan, Tinambac, Camarines
Sur; that an irrigation canal traverses the land of defendant Neri through which irrigation water from
the Silmod River passes and flows to the land of the petitioner for the latter's beneficial use and that
respondent Neri, owner of the land on which said irrigation canal exists and Senecio Ong, the
cultivator of the said property, despite repeated demands refused to recognize the rights and title of
the petitioner to the beneficial use of the water passing through the aforesaid irrigation canal.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the
case because the case, involving development, exploitation, conservation and utilization of water
resources falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council

Sec. 88 of the Water Code and in Section 3rd thereof which provides that 'the utilization, exploitation,
development, conservation and protection of water resources shall be subject to the control and
regulation of the government through Council.

Ruling:

That the plaintiff has an approved water rights Grant issued by the Department of Public Works,
Transportation and Communications, which plaintiff claims it for beneficial use to irrigate their land
from the Silmod River and defendants dispute said claim

3. That as of now, defendants have no approved Water Rights Grant issued by the proper authorities
for the use of the water for irrigation purposes from the Silmod River. However, defendants have a
pending application for Water Rights, the water of which shall pass thru a different irrigation canal.

The record clearly discloses an approved Water Rights Grant in favor of petitioner.

The water rights grant partakes the nature of a document known as a water permit recognized under
Article 13 of P.D. 1067, which provides:

Article 13. Except as otherwise herein provided, no person, including Government

instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations, shall appropriate
water without a water right, which shall be evidenced by a document known as a
water permit.

Water right is granted by the government to appropriate and use water.

 As correctly postulated by the petitioner, the court a quo is not being asked to grant
petitioner the right to use but to compel private respondents to recognize that right
and have the same annotated on respondent Neri's Torrens Certificate of Title.
Resort to judicial intervention becomes necessary because of the closure made by
the respondents of the irrigation canal thus depriving the petitioner to continue
enjoying irrigation water coming from Silmod River through respondents' property.
The interruption of the free flow of water caused by the refusal to re-open the closed
irrigation canal constituted petitioner's cause of action in the court below, which
decidedly do not fall within the domain of the authority of the National Water
Resources Council

The Order of the CFI is SET ASIDE. Private respondents are ordered to
RECOGNIZE petitioner's BASEMENT of water and to surrender to the Register of
Deeds of Camarines Sur the owner's duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14216
covering respondent Epifania Neri's property so that petitioner's right to the beneficial
use of said irrigation canal and water passing through the same may be annotated
thereon.

24. Miners vs. Factoran, January 16, 1995

Facts :

Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order Nos 211 and 279 in the exercise of her
legislative powers. EO No. 211 prescribes the interim procedures in the processing and approval of
applications for the exploration, development and utilization of minerals pursuant to Section 2, Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution. EO No. 279 authorizes the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint-
venture, co-production, or production- sharing agreements for the exploration, development, and
utilization of mineral resources.

The issuance and the impeding implementation by the DENR of Administrative Order Nos. 57 which
declares that all existing mining leases or agreements which were granted after the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution…shall be converted into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year from the
effectivity of these guidelines.” and Administrative Order No. 82 which provides that a failure to submit
Letter of Intent and Mineral Production-Sharing Agreement within 2 years from the effectivity of the
Department Administrative Order No. 57 shall cause the abandonment of the mining, quarry, and sand
and gravel claims, after their respective effectivity dates compelled the Miners Association of the
Philippines, Inc., an organization composed of mining prospectors and claim owners and claim holders,
to file the instant petition assailing their validity and constitutionality before this Court.

Issue :
Are the two Department Administrative Orders valid?

Ruling :

Yes. Petitioner's insistence on the application of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, as the
governing law on the acceptance and approval of declarations of location and all other kinds of
applications for the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources pursuant to Executive
Order No. 211, is erroneous. Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pertains to the old system of
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources through "license, concession or lease"
which, however, has been disallowed by Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. By virtue of the
said constitutional mandate and its implementing law, Executive Order No. 279 which superseded
Executive Order No. 211, the provisions dealing on "license, concession or lease" of mineral resources
under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, and other existing mining laws are deemed repealed
and, therefore, ceased to operate as the governing law. In other words, in all other areas of
administration and management of mineral lands, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as
amended, and other existing mining laws, still govern. Section 7 of Executive Order No. 279 provides,
thus:
Sec. 7. All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, other existing mining laws, and their
implementing rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of
this Executive Order, shall continue in force and effect.

Well -settled is the rule, however, that regardless of the reservation clause, mining leases or agreements
granted by the State, such as those granted pursuant to Executive Order No. 211 referred to this
petition, are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State.
Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard, may not be precluded by the
constitutional restriction on non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the
mining leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended, pursuant to
Executive Order No. 211. Police Power, being co-extensive with the necessities of the case and the
demands of public interest; extends to all the vital public needs. The passage of Executive Order No. 279
which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for the DENR Secretary to carry into
effect the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

25. Asaphil vs. Tuason, 488 SCRA 126, 2006

26. Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. vs. CA 193 SCRA 70

27. Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association vs. Gozun, 485 SCRA 586

28. Consolidated Decision on Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation vs.

MacroAsia Corporation, et al. (GR 169080), Blue Ridge Mineral Corporation vs. DENR

Secretary Angelo Reyes, et al. (GR 172936), Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration

Corporation vs. Blue Ridge Mineral Corporation and MacroAsia (GR 176226),

MacroAsia vs. Blue Ridge and Celestial (GR 176319), promulgated on December 19,

2007

29. La Bugal-B’laan vs. Ramos, 421 SCRA 148

30. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co vs. WMC Resources, 507 SCRA 315

31. Republic v. Rosemoor, 426 SCRA 517

32. Benguet Corp. vs DENR, 545 SCRA 196

On April 9, 1995, 30 days following its publication on March 10, 1995 in Malaya and Manila Times,
two newspapers of general circulation, R.A. No. 7942 took effect.33 Shortly before the effectivity of
R.A. No. 7942, however, or on March 30, 1995, the President entered into an FTAA with WMCP
covering 99,387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North
Cotabato.34

On August 15, 1995, then DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order
(DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995, otherwise known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
7942. This was later repealed by DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996 which was adopted on December 20,
1996.

On January 10, 1997, counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the DENR Secretary demanding that
the DENR stop the implementation of R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40, 35 giving the DENR fifteen
days from receipt36 to act thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or act on petitioners'
letter.37

Petitioners thus filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a temporary
restraining order. They allege that at the time of the filing of the petition, 100 FTAA applications had
already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares,38 64 of which applications are by fully
foreign-owned corporations covering a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at least one by a fully foreign-
owned mining company over offshore areas.39

They pray that the Court issue an order:

(a) Permanently enjoining respondents from acting on any application for Financial or
Technical Assistance Agreements;

(b) Declaring the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or Republic Act No. 7942 as unconstitutional
and null and void;

(c) Declaring the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Mining Act contained
in DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 and all other similar administrative issuances as
unconstitutional and null and void; and

(d) Cancelling the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement issued to Western Mining
Philippines, Inc. as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void.41