Chavez vs. PEA- Amari
PEA may only sell these lands to
Francisco I. Chavez vs. Public Estate Authority and Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation
G.R. No. 133250. May 6, 2003
Carpio, J.
Doctrine: In the hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of
alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, these lands are still public, not
private lands.
Facts: On November 20, 1973, the government, through the Commissioner of Public
Highways, signed a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of
the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay.
The contract also included the construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite
Coastal Road. CDCP obligated itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty
percent of the total reclaimed land.
On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree
No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA “to reclaim land, including
foreshore and submerged areas,” and “to develop, improve, acquire, x x x lease and
sell any and all kinds of lands.” On the same date, then President Marcos issued
Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA the “lands reclaimed in the foreshore
and offshore of the Manila Bay” under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and
Reclamation Project (MCCRRP).
On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No.
3517, granting and transferring to PEA “the parcels of land so reclaimed under the
Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project. On April 9, 1988, the Register
of Deeds issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the
three reclaimed islands known as the “Freedom Islands” located at the southern portion
of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Parañaque City. On April 25, 1995, PEA entered
into a Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the
Freedom Islands.
Petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant
violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of
alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations.
On March 30, 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement.
On May 28, 1999, the Office of the President under the administration of then
President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended JVA.
Several motions for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s July 9, 2002 decision
which declared the amended JVA null and void ab initio were filed. The conclusions of
said decision were summarized by the Court as follows:
The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered
by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain.
PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer
ownership of these lands to private corporations.
Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and
existing laws.
The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to
disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can
make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their
present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man.
Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership
of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to
Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain. PEA
may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the
reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed
for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public
domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain.
Issue: Whether or not the July 9, 2002 ruling of the Supreme Court should be reversed.
Held: No. Amari cannot claim good faith because even before Amari signed the
Amended JVA on March 30, 1999, petitioner had already filed the instant case on
April 27, 1998 questioning precisely the qualification of Amari to acquire the Freedom
Islands. Even before the filing of this petition, two Senate Committees had already
approved on September 16, 1997 Senate Committee Report No. 560 which concluded
that the Freedom Islands are inalienable lands of the public domain. Thus, Amari
signed the Amended JVA knowing and assuming all the attendant risks, including the
annulment of the Amended JVA. Amari has also not paid to PEA the full
reimbursement cost incurred by PEA in reclaiming the Freedom Islands. Moreover,
Amari does not claim to have even initiated the reclamation of the 592.15 hectares of
submerged areas covered in the Amended JVA, or to have started to construct any
permanent infrastructure on the Freedom Islands. In short, Amari does not claim to
have introduced any physical improvement or development on the reclamation project
that is the subject of the Amended JVA.
PEA cannot claim that it is “similarly situated” as the Bases Conversion Development
Authority (BCDA) which under R.A. No. 7227 is tasked to sell portions of the Metro
Manila military camps and other military reservations is incorrect. PEA took the place
of DENR as the government agency charged with leasing or selling reclaimed lands of
the public domain. The reclaimed lands being leased or sold by PEA are not private
lands, in the same manner that DENR, when it disposes of other alienable lands, does
not dispose of private lands but alienable lands of the public domain. Only when
qualified private parties acquire these lands will the lands become private lands. In the
hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of alienable or
disposable lands of the public domain, these lands are still public, not private lands.
To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as
private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA will
simply turn around and transfer several hundreds of hectares of these reclaimed and
still to be reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only one transaction. This
scheme will effectively nullify the constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution.
Chavez v. Pea and Amari
Fact:
In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to reclaim areas
of Manila Bay with the Construction and Development Corportion of the Philippines
(CDCP).
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President Marcos under P.D. 1084,
tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to
the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road and Reclamation
Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that all future projects
under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA.
By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to PEA.
It was followed by the transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of
Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the three reclaimed islands known as the
FREEDOM ISLANDS.
Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-
Philippine corporation to develop the Freedom Islands. Along with another 250
hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would later transfer said lands to
AMARI. This caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement,
claiming that such lands were part of public domain (famously known as the “mother
of all scams”).
Peitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer praying for mandamus, a writ of
preliminary injunction and a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to
AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these events, under President
Estrada’s admin, PEA and AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves
claim that the contract is null and void.
Issue:
w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed as part of the
stipulations in the (Amended) JVA between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII
of the 1987 Constitution
w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the issue of whether the amended joint
venture agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Held:
On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the constitution:
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer
ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to
Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and
existing laws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to
disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can
make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their
present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man.
3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,
ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.
PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the
reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed
for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public
domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the
1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.
CHAVEZ V PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY AND AMARI COASTAL BAY
FACTS:
Nature: original Petition for Mandamus with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction
and a temporary restraining order. Petition also seeks to compel the Public Estates
Authority (PEA) to disclose all facts on PEA’s then on-going renegotiations with
Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation to reclaim portions of Manila Bay.
The petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI
1997: Pres. Ramos created the Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of
involving such reclamation.
the JVA in view of the Senate Committee report.

1973: The government through the Commission of Public Highways signed a contract
1998: The Philippine Daily Inquirer published reports on on-going renegotiations
with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to
between PEA and AMARI
reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay

PEA Director Nestor Kalaw and PEA Chairman ArsenioYulo and former navy officer
1977: President Marcos issued PD No. 1084 creating the PEA, which was tasked to
Sergio Cruz were members of the negotiating panel
reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas and to develop, improve,
acquire x xx lease and sell any and all kinds of lands. On the same date, President
Marcos issued PD. 1085 transferring to PEA the lands reclaimed in the foreshore and
Frank Chavez filed petition for Mandamus stating that the government stands to lose
offshore of the Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation
billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI and prays that
Project (MCCRRP)
PEA publicly disclose the terms of the renegotiations of JVA. He cited that the sale to
AMARI is in violation of Article 12, Sec. 3 prohibiting sale of alienable lands of the
public domain to private corporations and Article 2 Section 28 and Article 3 Sec. 7 of
1981: Pres. Marcos issued a memorandum ordering PEA to amend its contract with
the Constitution on the right to information on matters of public concern
CDCP which stated that CDCP shall transfer in favor of PEA the areas reclaimed by
CDCP in the MCCRRP
1999: PEA and AMARI signed Amended JVA which Pres. Estrada approved
1988: Pres. Aquino issued Special Patent granting and transferring to PEA parcels of
land so reclaimed under the MCCRRP. Subsequently she transferred in the name of
PEA the three reclaimed islands known as the “Freedom Islands” ISSUES:
WON the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of
the subsequent events
1995: PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private
WON the petition merits dismissal for failure to observe the principle governing the
corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands and this was done without public bidding
hierarchy of courts
WON the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
Pres. Ramos through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres approved the JVA
WON petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit
WON the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going
1996: Senate Pres.Maceda delivered a privileged speech in the Senate and denounced negotiations before a final agreement
the JVA as the “grandmother of all scams”. As a result, the Senate conducted
WON the stipulations in the amended joint venture agreement for the transfer to
investigations. Among the conclusions were:
AMARI of certain lands, reclaimed and still to be reclaimed, violate the 1987
constitution; and
The reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the WON the court is the proper forum for raising the issue of whether the amended joint
public domain which the government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore venture agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
PEA cannot alienate these lands;
Threshold issue: whether AMARI, a private corporation, can acquire and own under
The certificates of the title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and the amended JVA 367.5 has. of reclaimed foreshore and submerged area in Manila
Bay in view of Sections 2 & 3, Art. 12 of the 1987 constitution
The JVA itself is illegal

HELD
(1) The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA on constitutional grounds
necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in the meantime PEA and
AMARI have signed one in violation of the Constitution and if already implemented,
to annul the effects of an unconstitutional contract
(2) The principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to cases involving factual
questions
Reasoning: the instant case raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to
the public
(3) The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the
issue involved is a purely legal or constitutional question
(4) Petitioner has standing if petition is of transcendental public importance and as
such, there is the right of a citizen to bring a taxpayer’s suit on these matters of
transcendental public importance
(5) The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going
negotiations before a final contract and must therefore constitute definite propositions
by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged
information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national
security and public order
Reasoning The State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public
interest reinforces the people’s right to information on matters of public concern. PEA
must prepare all the data and disclose them to the public at the start of the disposition
process, long before the consummation of the contract. While the evaluation or review
is on-going, there are no “official acts, transactions, or decisions” on the bids or
proposals but once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a
definite proposition on the part of the government
(6) In a form of a summary:
The 157.84 has.of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by
certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. PEA
may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of
these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to Philippine
citizens, subject to ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and existing laws.
The 592.15 has.of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources
of the public domain and outside the commerce of man until classified as alienable or
disposable lands open to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service.
The government can make such classification and declaration only after PEA has
reclaimed these submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural
lands of the public domain, which are the only natural resources the government can
alienate
Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership
of 77.34 has.of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section
3, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain
Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 has.of
still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section
2, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural
resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain. PEA may reclaim these
submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the reclaimed lands as
alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public services.
Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI
will be void in view of Section 3, Article 12 that prohibits private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Reasoning:
CA 141 of the Philippine National Assembly empowers the president to classify lands
of the public domain into alienable or disposable (Sec. 6).The President, upon
recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to
time classify the lands of the public domain into—(a) Alienable of disposable, (b)
timber, and (c) mineral lands.
The President must first officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable, and
then declare them open to disposition or concession.
Sec. 59 states that the lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a)
Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other means; (b)
Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands (d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes.
Sec. 61 states that the lands comprised in classes (a), (b) and (c) of section 59 shall be
disposed f to private parties by lease only and not otherwise
After the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, government reclaimed and marshy
disposable lands of the public domain continued to be only leased and not sold to
private parties. These lands remained suis generic as the only alienable or disposable
lands of the public domain the government could not sell to private parties. The only
way that the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy
disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing
such sale.
PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquino’s actual issuance of a special patent
covering the Freedom Islands, is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying the
Freedom Islands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1085
and President Aquino’s issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that the
Freedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. The Freedom Islands are
thus alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition or
concession to qualified parties.
in case of sale or lease of disposable lands of the public domain, a public bidding is
required
1987 Constitution declares that all natural resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.
Article 12, Sec. 3 states that alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable
lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years,
renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000 has.in area.
ration behind the ban on corporations from acquiring except through lease is not well
understood. If the purpose is to equitably diffuse lands ownership then the Consti could
have simply limited the size of alienable lands of the public domain that corporations
could acquire. If the intent were to encourage “owner-cultivatorship” and the economic
family-size farm and to prevent a recurrence of cases like the instant case, then placing
the land in the name of a corporation would be more effective in preventing the break-
up of farmlands. If the farmland were registered in the name of a corporation, upon the
death of the owner, his heirs would inherit shares in the corporation instead of
subdivided parcels of the farmland. This would prevent the continuing break-up of
farmlands into smaller and smaller plots from one generation to the next. In actual
practice then, this ban strengthens the consti limitation on individuals from
acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain.
Without the ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable
lands of the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable
public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow
him. He could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as
stockholders of the corporation.
In the instant case, the only patent and certificates of title issued are those in the name
of PEA, a wholly government owned corporation performing public as well as
proprietary functions. No patent or certificate of title has been issued to any private
party. No one is asking the Director of Lands to cancel PEA’s patent or certificates of
title. In fact, the thrust of the instant petition is that PEA’s certificates of title should
remain with PEA, and the land covered by these certificates, being alienable lands of
the public domain, should not be sold to a private corporation.
Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant
private or public ownership of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership but is merely evidence of ownership previously conferred by any of the
recognized modes of acquiring ownership. Registration does not give the registrant a
better right than what the registrant had prior to the registration.i[102] The registration
of lands of the public domain under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert
public lands into private lands.ii[103]
Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of the patent or issuance of the certificate of
title the alienable land of the public domain automatically becomes private land cannot
apply to government units and entities like PEA. The transfer of the Freedom Islands
to PEA was made subject to the provisions of CA No. 141 as expressly stated in
Special Patent No. 3517 issued by then President Aquino, to wit:
“NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW YE, that by authority of the Constitution of the
Philippines and in conformity with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084,
supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, there are hereby granted
and conveyed unto the Public Estates Authority the aforesaid tracts of land containing
a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four
(1,915,894) square meters; the technical description of which are hereto attached and
made an integral part hereof.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the Freedom Islands on matters not
covered by PD No. 1084. Section 60 of CA No. 141 prohibits, “except when
authorized by Congress,” the sale of alienable lands of the public domain that are
transferred to government units or entities. Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes,
under Section 44 of PD No. 1529, a “statutory lien affecting title” of the registered
land even if not annotated on the certificate of title.iii[104] Alienable lands of the
public domain held by government entities under Section 60 of CA No. 141 remain
public lands because they cannot be alienated or encumbered unless Congress passes a
law authorizing their disposition. Congress, however, cannot authorize the sale to
private corporations of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain because of the
constitutional ban. Only individuals can benefit from such law.
The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in accordance with Section 60
of CA No. 141 does not automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain
into private or patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public domain must be
transferred to qualified private parties, or to government entities not tasked to
dispose of public lands, before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands.
Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become illusory if Congress can declare lands
of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the hands of a government
agency tasked to dispose of public lands. This will allow private corporations to
acquire directly from government agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior to
such law, are concededly public lands
As the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects 3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,
nationwide, with authority to sell reclaimed lands, PEA took the place of DENR as the ownership of 77.34 hectaresiv[110] of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for
government agency charged with leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
domain. The reclaimed lands being leased or sold by PEA are not private lands, in the private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
same manner that DENR, when it disposes of other alienable lands, does not dispose of
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of
private lands but alienable lands of the public domain. Only when qualified private
290.156 hectaresv[111] of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void
parties acquire these lands will the lands become private lands. In the hands of the
for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of alienable of disposable lands
the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.
of the public domain, these lands are still public, not private lands.
PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the
Furthermore, PEA’s charter expressly states that PEA “shall hold lands of the public reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed
domain” as well as “any and all kinds of lands.” PEA can hold both lands of the public for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public
domain and private lands. Thus, the mere fact that alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
domain like the Freedom Islands are transferred to PEA and issued land patents or Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
certificates of title in PEA’s name does not automatically make such lands private. land of the public domain.
The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the
submerged areas form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands 1987 Constitution. Under Article 1409vi[112] of the Civil Code, contracts whose
reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas also form part of the public domain “object or purpose is contrary to law,” or whose “object is outside the commerce of
and are also inalienable, unless converted pursuant to law into alienable or men,” are “inexistent and void from the beginning.” The Court must perform its
disposable lands of the public domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, and therefore declares the Amended
government are sui generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike other JVA null and void ab initio.
alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for
public use or public service. Alienable lands of the public domain, increasingly
becoming scarce natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our ever-
growing population. To insure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions have barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of inalienable natural
resources of the State, or seek to circumvent the constitutional ban on alienation of
lands of the public domain to private corporations, do so at their own risk.
We can now summarize our conclusions as follows:
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer
ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to
Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and
existing laws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable
natural resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands
open to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government
can make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their
present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man.