• Natural Resources

• A Lecture by:

• ATTY. JAPHET T. MASCULINO

• Constitutional Provisions

• Principles: Art. II, Secs. 15 and 16

SEC. 15.
The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.

SEC. 16.
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

“While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it
does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and

• self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the

advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and
constitutions.

• As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

• If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because

of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced
and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the
Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and
imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect
and
advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not
only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which
stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The right
to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the Environment

Justice Hilario Davide

in Oposa vs. Factoran

“the protection of the environment is . . . a vital part of contemporary human

rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the
right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate
on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all the
human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights
instruments”.
Judge Weeramantry
International Court of Justice, 1997

“Human rights cannot be secured in a degraded or polluted environment. The fundamental

right to life is threatened by soil degradation and deforestation and by exposures to toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes and contaminated drinking water.
Environmental conditions clearly help to determine the extent to which people enjoy their basic
rights to life, health, adequate food and housing, and traditional livelihood and culture.

It is time to recognise that those who pollute or destroy the natural environment
are not just committing a crime against nature, but are violating human
rights as well”.

Klaus Toepfer,
Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme
Statement to the 57th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, 2001

• Eduardo F. Hernandez, et al. vs. National Power Corp.

GR No. 145328, March 23, 2006
Facts: In 1996, NAPOCOR began the construction of 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers to
support overhead high tension cables in connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-
Balintawak Power Transmission Project. Said transmission lines passes through Sergio
Osmeña, Sr. Highway (South Superhighway), the perimeter of Fort Bonifacio and
Dasmariñas Village proximate to Tamarind Road, where petitioners’ homes are.
Petitioners got hold of published articles and studies linking the incidence of a fecund of illnesses
to exposure to electromagnetic fields. These illnesses range from cancer to leukemia.
In 2000, petitioners sought the issuance of a preliminary injunction on the ground that the
NAPOCOR Project impinged on their right to health as enshrined in Article II, Section 15 of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
consciousness among them.

The trial court temporarily restrained the respondent from energizing and transmitting high
voltage electric current through the said project. NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari
with the Court of Appeals. Alluding to Presidential Decree No. 1818 (1981), "Prohibiting
Courts from Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving
Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated
by, the Government,” particularly Sec. 1, NAPOCOR stalwartly sought the dismissal of the
case on the ground of lack jurisdiction.

Presidential Decree No. 1818 provides:

Section 1. No Court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or
controversy involving an infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery, forest or other natural
resource development project of the government, or any public utility operated by the
government, including among other public utilities for transport of the goods or
commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity
or government official from proceeding with or continuing the execution or implementation
of any such project, or the operation of such public utility or pursuing any lawful activity
necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.

• Issue: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to issue a TRO and a preliminary
injunction even if the petitioners’ right to health is at stake?

• Held/Ratio: YES, the trial court has jurisdiction. The issue of petitioner’s right to health is a
veritable question of law thus removing the case from the protective mantle of Presidential
Decree No. 1818.

• Moreover, the issuance by the trial court of a preliminary injunction finds legal support in
Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. For a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued,
the Rules do not require that the act complained of be in violation of the rights of the
applicant. Indeed, what the Rules require is that the act complained of be probably in
violation of the rights of the applicant. In the case at bar, there is adequate evidence on
record to justify the conclusion that the project of NAPOCOR probably imperils the health
and safety of the petitioners so as to justify the issuance by the trial court of a writ of
preliminary injunction.

• Petitioners adduced in evidence copies of studies linking the incidence of illnesses such as
cancer and leukemia to exposure to electromagnetic fields.
• Despite the parties’ conflicting results of studies made on the issue, the possibility that the
exposure to electromagnetic radiation causes cancer and other disorders is still, indeed,
within the realm of scientific scale of probability.

• In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 aims to avert is the untimely frustration of
government infrastructure projects, particularly by provisional remedies, to the detriment
of the greater good by disrupting the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate
the economic development effort of the nation. Presidential Decree No. 1818, however, was
not meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the fundamental right to health,
safety and well-being of a community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.

• In the present case, the far-reaching irreversible effects to human safety should be the
primordial concerns over presumed economic benefits per se as alleged by the NAPOCOR.

• ARTICLE XII

• National Economy and Patrimony

Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and
services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity
as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of
human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign
markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign
competition and trade practices.

• In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall
be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations,
cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the
base of their ownership.

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,

petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.
 The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.

• The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens.

• Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by
law

• In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its
use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare
of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with
this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
• Natural Resources

• All lands of the public domain

• waters

• minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils

• all forces of potential energy

• fisheries

• forests or timber

• wildlife, flora and fauna

• and other natural resources

• Laws on Natural Resources

(a) the Small-Scale Mining Act;
(b) the NIPAS Act;
(c) the Mining Act;
(d) the Fisheries Code;
(e) the Clean Air Act;
(f) the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act;
(g) the Clean Water Act.

• Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or
timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they
may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands.

• Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of
the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
• Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and
development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the
Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which
may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.

• Lands of the Public Domain

• agricultural

– Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands

– Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the
public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand
hectares in area

– Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.

• forest or timber, mineral lands

• and national parks

• SEC. 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest
lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such
forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished,
except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to
prohibit logging in endangered forest and watershed areas.

• Public Lands

• Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act)

• Classification of Lands of the Public Domain

• Alienable or disposable

– Agricultural
 – Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes
– Educational, charitable or other similar purposes
– Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses
• Timber

• Mineral Lands

• Modes of Disposal of Public Lands Suitable for Agricultural Purposes

• For homestead settlement

• By sale

• By lease

• By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:

– By judicial legalization
– By administrative legalization (free patent)
• Homestead

• The home, the house and the adjoining land where the head of the family dwells.

• The Homestead Act is a social legislation enacted for the protection and welfare of the
poor.

• The conservation of a family home is the purpose of homestead laws. The policy of the
state is to foster families as the factors of society, and this promotes general welfare.

• Homestead, Qualifications and Area Obtainable

• Applicant must be a Filipino citizen over the age of 18 y.o. or the head of the family.

• Applicant must not own more than 24 has. Land in the Philippines.
• Married woman is not allowed to apply except:

– Leaving separately with husband & not dependent for support

– Husband is insane or physically incapacitated to work
– Husband is in prison
• Procedure to Obtain Homestead Patent

• Procedure for Sale of Public Agricultural Lands

• Regalian Doctrine

• The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the
1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.

• Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to
the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private
ownership.

• History of Regalian Doctrine

• Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and
possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.[50] The Regalian doctrine was
first introduced in the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas,
which laid the foundation that “all lands that were not acquired from the Government,
either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.”

• The Laws of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893.
The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as
well as possessory claims.
• The Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and
the Laws of the Indies. It established possessory information as the method of legalizing
possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions which were set forth in said
decree. Under Section 393 of the Maura Law, an informacion posesoria or possessory
information title, when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is converted into a title of
ownership only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of uninterrupted possession which must
be actual, public, and adverse, from the date of its inscription. However, possessory
information title had to be perfected one year after the promulgation of the Maura Law, or
until April 17, 1895. Otherwise, the lands would revert to the State.

• In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on
royal concessions which took various forms, namely: (1) titulo real or royal grant; (2)
concesion especial or special grant; (3) composicion con el estado or adjustment title;
(4) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and (5) informacion posesoria or possessory
information title.

• Post-Spanish Land Laws

• The first law governing the disposition of public lands in the Philippines under American
rule was embodied in the Philippine Bill of 1902. By this law, lands of the public domain in
the Philippine Islands were classified into three (3) grand divisions, to wit: agricultural,
mineral, and timber or forest lands.

• On February 1, 1903, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 496, otherwise known as the
Land Registration Act. The act established a system of registration by which recorded title
becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible. This is known as the Torrens system.

• Concurrently, on October 7, 1903, the Philippine Commission passed Act No. 926, which
was the first Public Land Act. The Act introduced the homestead system and made
provisions for judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale
or lease of public lands. It permitted corporations regardless of the nationality of persons
owning the controlling stock to lease or purchase lands of the public domain. Under the
Act, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands for the next ten (10) years preceding July 26, 1904 was sufficient for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title.
• On November 29, 1919, Act No. 926 was superseded by Act No. 2874, otherwise known as
the second Public Land Act. This new, more comprehensive law limited the exploitation of
agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave
Filipinos the same privileges. For judicial confirmation of title, possession and occupation
en concepto dueño since time immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required.

• After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, CA No. 141 amended Act No. 2874 on
December 1, 1936. To this day, CA No. 141, as amended, remains as the existing general
law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than
timber and mineral lands, and privately owned lands which reverted to the State.

• Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the requirement under Act No. 2874 of possession and
occupation of lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since July 26, 1894.
However, this provision was superseded by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942, which provided for
a simple thirty-year prescriptive period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The
provision was last amended by PD No. 1073, which now provides for possession and
occupation of the land applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

• The issuance of PD No. 892 on February 16, 1976 discontinued the use of Spanish titles as
evidence in land registration proceedings. Under the decree, all holders of Spanish titles or
grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496 within six (6) months
from the effectivity of the decree on February 16, 1976. Thereafter, the recording of all
unregistered lands shall be governed by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended by Act No. 3344.

• On June 11, 1978, Act No. 496 was amended and updated by PD No. 1529, known as the
Property Registration Decree. It was enacted to codify the various laws relative to
registration of property. It governs registration of lands under the Torrens system as well
as unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages.