Chavez v.

Public Estates Authority, 384 SCRA 152 [2000]

DOCTRINE: Article 420 of the Civil Code of 1950 incorporated the Regalian doctrine. Art. 341 provides
“Property of public dominion, when no longer devoted to public use or to the defense of the territory,
shall become a part of the private property of the State.”
Only individuals can own public lands alienated by the state. These has to be agricultural lands of public
domain no longer useful for the government. There has to be legislation, then bidding, if unsuccessful
then negotiated agreement. In all these stages, the right to freedom of information is upheld unless
information is privileged.
FACTS: The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority 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 involving
such reclamation.
President Marcos created the PEA to be the sole office in charge of reclamations and retention of
ownership of reclaimed land in the country on behalf of the State. President Cory Aquino upheld the
office and granted it authority over the Freedom Islands (land near present-day MOA) for its reclamation
and management. President Ramos approved an agreement where PEA and AMARI entered into a Joint
Venture Agreement of the Freedom Islands along Manila-Cavite coastal roads through negotiation
without public bidding. The JVA seeks to transfer title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands
and submerged areas of Manila Bay to a single private corporation.
Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the JVA as
the "grandmother of all scams." There were controversies dug up in the agreement issue. After years and
negotiations resulting in the amendment of the JVA, the administration of then President Joseph E.
Estrada approved the Amended JVA.
ISSUES:
1. WON the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of subsequent
events.
2. WON the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle governing the hierarchy of courts.
3. WON the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
4. WON petitioner has locus standi.
5. WON the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final agreement.
6. WON stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed,
violate the Constitution.
RULING:
1. No. We rule that the signing of the Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its approval by the
President cannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction. PEA and
AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA. 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.
AMARI seeks to acquire from PEA, a public corporation, reclaimed lands and submerged areas for
non-agricultural purposes by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Title III of CA No.
141. Neither AMARI nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of their titles because the lands
covered by the Amended JVA are newly reclaimed or still to be reclaimed. Judicial confirmation
of imperfect title requires open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain for at least thirty years since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Further, the
deadline for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect title expired on December
31, 1987.
2. No. The case raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public.
3. No. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue
involved is a purely legal or constitutional question.
4. Yes. The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to
compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved
here: the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern, and, the application of a
constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the
public domain among Filipino citizens.
5. Yes. The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going
negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must 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.
6. Yes. The Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
The Regalian Doctrine as adopted by the Constitution provides that ‘all natural resources are
"owned by the State," and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural
resources cannot be alienated.’ Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law
enacted by the Congress.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition is GRANTED. The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development
Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing the Amended Joint Venture Agreement
which is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio.