Pa copy ko sa mga answer nimo

1. After bidding for a waste management project with the BBB, A company won
a contract for the BBB’s C City waste management project. A contract for
the waste to energy project was signed on between A and the Government,
represented by the Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste Management
through the DENR Secretary and BBB chair. The contract, however, was
never signed by the President as it was too close to the end of his term.He
endorsed it to the next President, but the latter refused to sign it, for two
reasons: the passage of RA 8749, and the clamor of C City's residents for
the closure of the dumpsite. When the BBB published another call for
proposals for solid waste management projects for M City, A Company filed
a petition with the RTC asking the court to declare as void the resolution of
the Greater M City Solid Waste Management committee disregarding the
contract with A company, and the call for bids for a new waste management
contract. In 2000, the lower court decided in favor of A. When the CA
dismissed the petition, the BBB went to the SC, arguing that the contract
with A was not binding because it was not signed by the President, the
conditions precedent to the contract were not complied with, and there was
no valid notice of award. Discuss the validity and enforceability of the
contract between A and the Republic.

2. X , a private corporation, acquired from A and B, members of T'boli Tribe, a

parcel of land. Assume that A and B inherited the land from their parents
who have been holding or occupying the same since 1900. In October 1962,
X filed a petition for confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title. The
CFI(now RTC) granted the application. The CA affirmed the decision. The
director of Lands appealed contending that X is disqualified to acquire the
alienable land. Decide. *
3. Several concerned residents of the areas fronting SU Bay, among them a
group of students who are minors, filed a suit against the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Health
(DOH), the Department of Agriculture(DA), the Department of
Education(DepEd), the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG), and a number of other executive agencies, asking the court to order
them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation and
protection of SU Bay. The complaint alleges that the continued neglect by
Pa copy ko sa mga answer nimo

defendants and their failure to prevent and abate pollution in SU Bay

constitute a violation of their constitutional right to life, health and balanced
ecology.The Court, in its decision, ordered the defendants to clean up,
rehabilitate and sanitize SU Bay within 20 months, and to submit to the
Court periodic reports of their accomplishment. Subsequently, a resolution
was issued extending the time periods within which the agencies should
comply with the directives covered by the final decision. A view was raised
that the Court’s continued intervention after the case has been decided
violates the doctrine of separation of powers considering that the
government agencies all belong to the Executive Department. Decide with
reasons. *
4. The application for zoning compliance and building permit filed by A, covering the
construction of an additional three-storey hotel over a parcel of land covered by a
Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) by the Municipal
Zoning Administrator were denied on the ground that the proposed site was within
the “no build zone” demarcated in a Municipal Ordinance. A insists and argued that
the fact that it was issued FLAgT constitutes sufficient authorization from DENR to
proceed with the construction of the three-storey hotel. However, the municipality
maintains that the issuance of a FLAgT did not preclude it from imposing additional
building requirements over such forestland. Decide. 
5. What is the presumption with respect to lands not clearly appearing to be
-privately-owned? Explain in your own words.

6. A was charged for violating Section 68 of PD 705 for possessing without lawful
authority of permit, 2,000 board feet of assorted species and dimensions of lumber
on 2 pick-up vehicle with a value of P15,000. A claimed that the law is “vague" as it
does not specify the authority or the legal documents required by existing forest
laws and regulations. He contended that the information against him should be
quashed as it violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection
of the law. He further questioned on whether the charge of illegal possession of
lumber is excluded from the crime of illegal possession of timber to warrant the
quashal of an information charging the former offense or anon-existent crime.

7. CFA , a coal mining and processing plant owned and controlled by the state
of Danielle, burned down for several days due to malfunction of the
equipment and failure of the employees to properly maintain the site. Since
CFA was located near the border of anielle and State of Calaculla, the smile
made the Calacullans living near the border sick, prompting them to leave
their homes due to unbearable living conditions. May the State of Anielle be
held liable? *
Pa copy ko sa mga answer nimo

8. XYZ Company entered into an agreement with ABC Company whereby the latter
agreed to act as mine operator for the exploration, development and eventual
commercial operations of XYZ’s 18 mining claims in D Province. Pursuant to the
terms, ABC filed applications for mining lease contract over the mining claims of
XYZ with the Bureau of Mines. Thereafter, ABC was issued a Mines Temporary
Permit authorizing it to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within its
mining claims. Upon its expiration, the temporary permit was subsequently
renewed thrice by the Bureau of Mines. Since a portion of ABC ‘s mining claims
was located on petitioner XYZ’s logging concession, ABC and XYZ entered into an
agreement, whereby a mutual recognition of each other’s right to the area
concerned, petitioner XYZ allowed ABC a right of way to its mining claims. ABC
converted its mining claims to applications for Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement. While MPSA was pending, ABC decided to sell its rights and interests
over 37 mining claims in favor of private respondent EFG Corporation. The transfer
included mining claims held by ABC in its own right as claim owner, as well as
those covered by its mining operating agreement with XYZ. Upon being informed of
the development, XYZ, as claim owner, immediately approved the assignment
made by ABC in favor of private respondent, thereby recognizing private
respondent as the new operator of its claims.In March 1997, private respondent
EFG amended ABC’s pending MPSA applications with the Bureau of Mines to
substitute itself as applicant and to submit additional documents in support of its
application. Area clearance from the DENR were submitted, as required. In
October 1997, private respondent’s amended MPSA was published with the
requirement of the Mining Act of 1995. In November 1997, petitioner XYZ filed with
the Mines and Geo Sciences Bureau an adverse claim and /or opposition to private
respondent’s application. After the submission of their respective position paper,
the Panel Arbitrator issued and order disapproving private respondent’s MPSA on
the reasons that adverse claim was filed on time, that the granting of the MPSA’s
application on area subject of an IFMA or PTLA which is covered by a Presidential
Warranty, the panel believes it cannot, unless the grantee consents thereto, without
the grantee’s consent the area is considered closed to mining location and that the
mining location in forest or timberland is allowed only if such forest or timberland is
not leased by the government to a qualified person or entity and if it is leased the
consent of the lessor is necessary, in addition to the area clearance to be issued by
the agency before it is subjected to mining operation. Plantation is considered
Pa copy ko sa mga answer nimo

closed to mining locations because it is tangent to mining. Both are extremes. They
cannot exist at the same time. The other must necessarily stop before the other
operate. Private respondent EFG filed a notice of appeal with public respondent
MAB, the latter rendered the assailed decision setting aside the Panel Arbitrator’s
order. The CA upheld the decision of MAB. Hence the petition. a. Was the area
covered by private respondent’s MPSA close to mining activities? b. Was the
Presidential Warranty a contract protected by the non-impairment clause under the
1987 Constitution? Discuss.
9. From the Bohol Light's substation in Dampas District emanates an unceasing
sound, which according to Dr. V, who is residing in the adjoining lot, disturbed his
concentration and sleep, impaired his health and lowered the value of his property.
wherefore, he brought an action against the Bohol Light for abatement of the
nuisance and for damages. Quantitative intensity measurements made show that
the normal sound levels in the locality range from 40 t0 50 decibels, while the areas
immediately adjoining the substations , they range from 66 to 76 decibels. Will the
action prosper? Reasons.