MIAA v.

City of Pasay
FACTS

• Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates and administers the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA) Complex under Executive Order No. 903 (EO 903),3otherwise known as the
Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
The NAIA Complex is located along the border between Pasay City and Parañaque City.
• MIAA received Final Notices of Real Property Tax Delinquency from the City of Pasay for the taxable years
1992 to 2001.
• The Court of Appeals upheld the power of the City of Pasay to impose and collect realty taxes on the NAIA
Pasay properties. MIAA filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied.
• MIAA then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and injunction with prayer for preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to enjoin the City of Pasay from imposing real
property taxes on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the NAIA Pasay properties

ISSUE

W/N the NAIA Pasay properties of MIAA are exempt from real property tax – YES. for two reasons.

RATIO
1. MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but a government instrumentality which is exempt
from any kind of tax from the local governments. Under Section 133 (o) of the Local Government Code, local
government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the MIAA. Hence,
MIAA is not liable.
2. The airport lands and buildings of MIAA are properties of public dominion (under Art 420, ¶1) intended for
public use, and as such are exempt from real property tax under Section 234 (a) of the Local Government
Code.

Chavez v. PEA (May 2003)

FACTS
• In its July 2002 decision, the Court held that:
o (1) the 157ha of reclaimed land comprising the freedom islands are alienable land of the public
domain. The PEA may lease these lands to private corporations and can only sell the same to Filipino
citizens subject to the limitation of the Constitution.
o (2) The 592ha 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.
• 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
• W/N Amari can claim good faith –NO

RATIO
• The Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration where Amari contends that the Decision should be made
to apply prospectively, not retroactively to cover the Amended JVA.
 • They assert that a new doctrine of the Court cannot apply retroactively on those who relied on the doctrine
with good faith.
• However, the Court ruled that 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.
• 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.

Chavez v. PEA (November 2003)

FACTS
• Public Estates Authority (PEA), under the JVA, obligated itself to convey title and possession over the Property,
consisting of approximately One Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred Forty One
(1,578,441) Square Meters for a total consideration of One Billion Eight Hundred Ninety Four Million One
Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred (P1,894,129,200.00) Pesos, or a price of One Thousand Two
Hundred (P1,200.00) Pesos per square meter.
• This petition asked the Court to legitimize a government contract that conveyed to a private entity 157.84
hectares of reclaimed public lands along Roxas Boulevard in Metro Manila at the negotiated price of P1,200
per square meter.
• However, published reports place the market price of land near that area at that time at a high of P90,000 per
square meter.
• The bulk of the lands subject of the Amended JVA are still submerged lands even to this very day, and therefore
inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Of the 750 hectares subject of the Amended JVA, 592.15
hectares or 78% of the total area are still submerged, permanently under the waters of Manila Bay.

ISSUE
• Whether or not stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or to be
reclaimed on portions of Manila Bay, violate the Constitution. YES.

RATIO
• Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State’s inalienable natural resources.
• Submerged lands are property of public dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of man.
This is also true with respect to foreshore lands.
• Any sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void being contrary to the Constitution as it violates Section 2,
Article XII.

Chavez v. NHA
FACTS
• This is a case regarding the Joint Venture Agreement between NHA and RBI for the development of the Smokey
Mountain dumpsite and the reclamation
• The Project "involves the clearing of Smokey Mountain for eventual development into a low cost medium rise
housing complex and industrial/commercial site with the reclamation of the area directly across [R-10] to act
as the enabling component of the Project."
 • In the event of "extraordinary increase in labor, materials, fuel and non-recoverability of total project
expenses", the OP, upon recommendation of the NHA, may approve a corresponding adjustment in the
enabling component
• During the actual construction and implementation of Phase I, Inter-Agency Technical Committee found and
recommended. additional works were necessary for the completion and viability of the Project.
• This was approved by EXECOM so the NHA instructed RBI to implement the change orders and necessary
worls.
• The Ramos admin endorsed the supplemental agreement to incoming Pres. Estrada.
• The approval of the Supplemental Agreement was unacted upon for five months. . The 220-hectare extension
of the 79-hectare area was no longer technically feasible. Repeated demands were made by RBI in its own
capacity and on behalf of the asset pool on NHA for payment for the advances for direct and indirect costs
subject to NHA validation.
• The government bid out the remaining works under the works under the ASA thereby unilaterally terminating
the Project with RBI and all the agreements related thereto.
• The NHA and RBI executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) whereby both parties agreed to terminate
the JVA and other subsequent agreements where there’s a Settlement of Claim: Conveyance of a 3 hectare
portion of the Vitas Industrial area immediately after joint determination of the appraised value of the said
property.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
1. RBI cannot acquire the reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas as these are inalienable public lands beyond
the commerce of man based on Art. 1409 of the Civil Code.
2. Despite the declaration that the reclaimed areas are alienable lands of the public domain, still, the reclamation
is flawed for there was never any declaration that said lands are no longer needed for public use.

ISSUES
1. Whether RBI can acquire reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands considered as inalienable and outside the
commerce of man – YES
2. Whether RBI can acquire reclaimed lands when there was no declaration that said lands are no longer needed
for public use – YES

RATIO
• The reclaimed lands across R-10 were classified alienable and disposable lands of public domain of the State
because there were three (3) presidential proclamations classifying the reclaimed lands across R-10 as
alienable or disposable hence open to disposition or concession:
o MO 415 issued by President Aquino
o Proclamation No. 39 issued by then President Ramos by which the reclaimed lands were conveyed to
NHA for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development into a mixed land
use
o Proclamation No. 465 likewise issued by President Ramos enlarged the reclaimed area to 79 hectares
to be developed and disposed
• Special Patents Nos. 3591, 3592, and 3598 issued by the DENR anchored on Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465
issued by President Ramos, without doubt, classified the reclaimed areas as alienable and disposable.
• There was an implicit executive declaration that the reclaimed areas R-10 are not necessary anymore for
public use or public service when President Aquino through MO 415 conveyed the same to the NHA partly for
housing project and related commercial/industrial development intended for disposition to and enjoyment of
certain beneficiaries and not the public in general and partly as enabling component to finance the project.
• President Ramos, in issuing Proclamation No. 39, declared, though indirectly, that the reclaimed lands of the
Smokey Mountain project are no longer required for public use or service.