This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RAMOS VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- ADVERSE POSSESSION The general rule is that possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land under the claim of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another. FACTS: Restituo Romero gained possession of a considerable tract of land located in Nueva Ecija. He took advantage of the Royal Decree to obtain a possessory information title to the land and was registered as such. d. c. b. declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature’s power. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares. Parcel No. 1 included within the limits of the possessory information title of Romero was sold to Cornelio Ramos, herein petitioner. Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s, PD, and RA were constitutional. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title registered. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain. RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to Director of Forestry also opposed on the ground that the first parcel of land is forest land. It has been seen however that the predecessor in interest to the petitioner at least held this tract of land under color of title. ISSUE: Whether or not the actual occupancy of a part of the land described in the instrument giving color of title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land? HELD: The general rule is that possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land under the claim of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another. deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it.
Director of Lands opposed on the ground that Ramos had not acquired a good title from the Spanish government.
The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith and he has open, peaceable, and notorious possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to apprise the community and the world that the land was for his enjoyment.
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.
Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the requirements of the law on supposition that the premises consisted of agricultural public land.
On the issue of forest land, Forest reserves of public land can be established as provided by law. When the claim of the citizen and the claim of the government as to a particular piece of property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate that the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry should submit to the court convincing proof that the land is not more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.
In this case, the mere formal opposition on the part of the Attorney-General for the Director of Forestry, unsupported by satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from giving title to the claimant. Petitioner and appellant has proved a title to the entire tract of land for which he asked for registration. Registration in the name of the petitioner is hereby granted.
Association Of Small Landowners Vs. Secretary Of DAR Case Digest Asso. Of Small Landowners Vs. Sec. Of DAR 175 SCRA 343 G.R. No. L-78742 July 14, 1989
Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case:
A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. Tenants were
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, petitioners, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA
Their cavalier attitude towards solving. respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of. jointly and solidarily. And rightly so. a spot for different contact recreation activities. (10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations. the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents. if not mitigating. prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose. Finding merit in the complaint. 6969). This case turns on government agencies and their officers who. OPOSA. FELIMON SANTIAGUEL. once brimming with marine life and. EN BANC (1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life. 984). the pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves. by the nature of their respective offices or by direct statutory command. for the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself. In their individual causes of action. to clean up and rehabilitate . respondents. the voice of cynicism. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code. the Court ordered defendant-government agencies. To most of these agencies and their official complement. 1067). as a cause of climate change. for so many decades in the past. SARAH JOELLE LINTAG. Issues: a) Whether or not pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. are tasked to protect and preserve. (12) Doctrine and the Principle of and International Law Inter alia. the environmental pollution problem. but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise made a difference. b) Whether or not the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. and seas polluted by human activities. 979). At the core of the case is the Manila Bay. and JAIME AGUSTIN R. oil spills. But amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action. VENICE SEGARRA. among others: (4) (5) (PD (PD Code (6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825). Facts: On January 29. Cavite against several government agencies. respondents. at the first instance. specifically Presidential Decree No. (11) The Trust Guardianship. rivers. 2002. and protection of the Manila Bay. and a balanced ecology. Media have finally trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution. and the unabated improper disposal of garbage. for the cleanup. Control Code The need to address environmental pollution. (2) (3) The The The The Environment Pollution Water Sanitation Code Law (PD (PD 1152). health. 1999. (9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 192. rehabilitation. if their track records are to be the norm. respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus. The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law. FRITZIE TANGKIA. shores. HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS. naysayers. a place with a proud historic past. has of late gained the attention of the international community. our internal waters. is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment. the destruction of forests and other critical habitats. (7) (8) The Marine Executive Pollution Order Law (PD No.2|Page QUITAIN. and procrastinators can still be heard. as plaintiffs a quo. Held: Regional Trial Rehabilitate Court’s Order to Manila Clean Up and Bay On September 13. 856).
time is of the essence. they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of . Defendant DBM. and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed. and five other executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review under Rule 45. Defendant DPWH. to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. are directed. DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris. Defendant DENR. to see to it that the water districts under its wings. to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship-generated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay. which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay. The Court of Appeals Sustained the RTC’s Decision Defendant MWSS is directed to install. there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks. with the help and cooperation of all civicminded individuals. through petitioners. would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Defendant LWUA. like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay. and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay. could only be accomplished if those mandated. daunting as they may be. Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). to closely supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge companies and require The MWSS. to establish. This means that the State. with defendant DENR as the lead agency. to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals. the DENR. operate and maintain an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system such as reuse or recycling of wastes. has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay. operate and maintain adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay. To attain this. hence. Jr. to act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated. Factoran. Defendant DECS. But the tasks ahead. construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste. So it was that in Oposa v. In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation. the Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. defendant-agencies. Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). within six (6) months from receipt hereof. provide. to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay. Defendant PPA. Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group. Defendant DOH. The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource. In particular: them to have proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal. As the construction and engineering arm of the government. Defendant DA. skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). On the other hand. to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. playground. to install. such as carcass of sunken vessels. operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances. These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up in Manila Bay. Defendant MMDA. Indeed. to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.3|Page Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming. some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates. to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education the importance of preserving and protecting the environment. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
R." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court.." The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos. must unite to protect Mother Nature. Factoran. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them. 2] Cease and desist from receiving.4|Page Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. and entitled to the full benefit. use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests. I deem that this will bring more strength on our crusade to love nature and rediscover the beauty of Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay. Let us protect the Beautiful entire Philippine Islands! petitioners have a cause of action. Posted by Chester Cabalza at 11:04 AM 1 comment: 1] Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country. it is prayed for that judgment be rendered: . The beauty of having this case is to remind us. taxpayers. 2005. stressing that the trial court’s decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws. that we Filipinos. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. Oposa Fact: vs." 4Consequently. This right is also the mandate of the government through DENR. The Writ of Kalikasan empowers us to file complaint against irresponsible and uncaring citizens who disrespect Mother Nature. The said right implies the judicious management of the country’s forests. By a Decision of September 28. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action? HELD: YES Matanglawin the Environmentalist said. renewing or approving new timber license agreements. 101083 a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. processing. the CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto." The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. accepting. This is a landmark case on Environmental Law.. G. The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.