11.

G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982

LAUSAN AYOG, et al, petitioners,
vs. JUDGE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR.,

On January 21, 1953, the Director of Lands awarded to Biñan Development Co., Inc. on the basis of
its 1951 Sales Application No. V-6834 Cadastral Lot No. 281 with an area of about two hundred fifty
hectares. Some occupants of the lot protested against the sale. The Director of Lands dismissed the
protests and ordered the occupants to vacate the lot.

The Director found that the protestants entered the land only after it was awarded to the corporation.

Because the alleged occupants refused to vacate the land, the corporation filed an ejectment
suit

It was only on August 14, 1975 when Sales Patent No. 5681 was issued to the corporation.

The Director of Lands pointed out that the purchaser corporation had complied with the said
requirements long before the effectivity of the Constitution.

Secretary of Natural Resources in approving the patent on August 14, 1975, noted that the applicant
had acquired a nested right to its issuance.

Before that patent was issued, there was a trial in the ejectment suit.

The trial court ordered the defendants to vacate the land and to restore the possession thereof to tile
company. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.

The defendants, opposing the motion for execution, contended that the adoption of the Constitution,
which took effect on January 17, 1973, was a supervening fact which rendered it legally impossible
to execute the lower court's judgment.

Issue

Whether or not the sale of the subject land to Binan Devt Corp is barred by the 1973 Constitution
provision, that "no private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area."

Decision

No. The SC hold that the said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to the sales
application of Biñan Development Co., Inc. because it had already acquired a vested right to the
land applied for at the time the 1973 Constitution took effect.

Section 2, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution allows private corporations to purchase public
agricultural lands not exceeding one thousand and twenty-four hectares. Petitioners' prohibition
action is barred by the doctrine of vested rights in constitutional law.
Secretary of Justice Abad Santos in his 1973 opinion ruled that where the applicant, before the
Constitution took effect, had fully complied with all his obligations under the Public Land Act in order
to entitle him to a sales patent, there would seem to be no legal or equitable justification for refusing
to issue or release the sales patent

Its compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law for the issuance of a patent had the
effect of segregating the said land from the public domain.

12
G.R. No. 135385               December 6, 2000
ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners,
vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, et al respondents.

Petitioners brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus, assailing the constitutionality of certain
provisions of R.A. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.

Respondents filed on October 13, 1998 their Comment to the Petition, in which they defend the
constitutionality of the IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.

The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it
grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be
granted in part.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59, 63, 65 and 66 and
other related provisions of R.A. 8371 on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of
the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural
resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine.

Issue

Whether or not Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59, 63, 65 and 66 and other related provisions of
R.A. 8371 amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public
domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine.

Decision

7)voted to dismiss the petition, 5 of whom sustained the validity of the challenged provisions of R.A.
8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged provisions of the law with
the exception of Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the
large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with Section 2, Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution.

7 other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed a separate opinion
expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are
unconstitutional. He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the
law, which he believes must await the filing of specific cases by those whose rights may have been
violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug, joined by Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De
Leo, also filed a separate opinion, expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are
unconstitutional.
The case was redeliberated upon as the votes were equally divided (7 to 7. After redeliberation, the
voting remained the same. Pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the
petition is DISMISSED.