OPOSAN v FACTORAN

The Case: seeking the cancellation and non-issuance of timber licence agreements
which allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology

An action was filed by several minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing
their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents
against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be
rendered ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the

country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing, or appraising new TLAs;

and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises.” They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the defendant
in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in
trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question
which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent
the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?”

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.
Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of
nature” which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral,
land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to
the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put
a little differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.

NPC V MANUBAY AGRI INDUSTRIAL DEV.

The case is a petition for review to set aside the decision renderd by the CA.
In 1996, [Petitioner] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, a government-owned and controlled
corporation created for the purpose of undertaking the development and generation
of hydroelectric power The project aims to transmit the excess electrical
generating capacity coming from Leyte Geothermal Plant to Luzon to interconnect
the entire country into a single power grid.

"In order to carry out this project, [petitioner’s] transmission lines must cross
over certain lands owned by private individuals and entities. One of these lands is
owned by [respondent] MANUBAY AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION..
Thereafter, [petitioner] filed a complaint for expropriation before the Regional
Trial Court of Naga City against [respondent] in order to acquire an easement of
right of way over the land.

Aftersometime, [respondent] filed its answer and the court issued an order
authorizing the immediate issuance of a writ of possession and directing Ex-Officio
Provincial Sheriff to immediately place [petitioner] in possession of the subject
land. Subsequently, the court directed the issuance of a writ of condemnation in
favor of [petitioner]and for the purpose of determining the fair and just
compensation, the court appointed three commissioners composed of one
representative of the petitioner, one for the respondent and the other from the
court.
The commissioner for the [petitioner] recommended the price of P115.00 per square
meter. commissioner for the [respondent], recommended the price of P550.00 per
square meter. The court adopted the recommended price of the commissioner of the
respondent.
The RTC approved the amount of 550 per sq meter as a just compensation to the said
property and stressed that the Transmission Project would impose a limitation on
the use of the land for an indefinite period of time, thereby justifying the
payment of the full value of the property.

Ruling of the CA
Affirming the RTC, the CA held that RA 6395, as amended by PD No. 938, did not
preclude expropriation Section 3-A thereof allowed the power company to acquire
not just an easement of a right of way, but even the land itself. Such easement was
deemed by the appellate court to be a "taking" under the power of eminent domain.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the
Decision d of the Regional Trial Court,

NPC insisted that if any amount should be paid to the landowners, it should only be
an easement fee of 10% the value of the property, not the full value, since it
acquired only a simple right-of-way easement for the passage of its overhead
transmission lines. It pointed out that its charter authorizes the acquisition only
of a right-of-way easement for its transmission lines and the payment of an
easement fee.

it was said that granting arguendo that what petitioner acquired over respondent’s
property was purely an easement of a right of way, still, the Court cannot sustain
its view that it should pay only an easement fee, and not the full value of the
property. The acquisition of such an easement falls within the purview of the power
of eminent domain. (Republic v. PLDT, 136 Phil. 20 (1969)).

True, an easement of a right of way transmits no rights except the easement

itself, and owner retains full ownership of the property. The acquisition of such
easement is, nevertheless, not gratis. Considering the nature and the effect of the
installation of power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an
indefinite period would deprive owner of normal use of the property. For this
reason, the latter is entitled to payment of just compensation which must be
neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the land. (NPC v. Dr. Antero
Bongbong, et al., G.R. No. 164079, April 3, 2007).

ORTIGAS & CO. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs. FEATI BANK AND TRUST CO.

G.R. No. L-24670 14 December 1979

Santos, J.

FACTS:

Ortigas and Co. is engaged in real estate business developing and selling lots to
the public. It sold to Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles Lots Nos. 5 and 6,
Block 31 of the Highway Hills Subdivision, Mandaluyong by sale on instalments. The
vendees then transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in
favour of one Emma Chavez. The agreements of sale on instalment and the deeds of
sale contained the restriction that “The parcel of land subject of this deed of
sale shall be used by the Buyer exclusively for residential purposes, and she shall
not be entitled to take or remove soil, stones or gravel from it or any other lots
belonging to the Seller.”

Feati Bank and Trust Co. later bought said lots from Emma Chavez in the name of
Republic Flour Mills. Ortigas and Co. claims that the restrictions were imposed as
part of its general building scheme designed for the beautification and development
of the Highway Hills Subdivision which forms part of its big landed estate. Feati
Bank, on the other hand, maintains that the area along the western part of EDSA
from Shaw Boulevard to Pasig River has been declared a commercial and industrial
zone, per Resolution No. 27 s-1960 of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong, Rizal.
Later on, Feati Bank commenced construction on the said lots for a building devoted
to banking purposes. It refused to comply with the demands of Ortigas & Co. to
stop the said construction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Resolution No. 27 s-1960 can nullify or supersede the contractual
obligations assumed by the defendant.

HELD:

Yes. While non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is

not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police
power, i.e. “ the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals,
peace, education, good order or safety of the general welfare of the people.” This
general welfare clause shall be liberally interpreted in case of doubt, so as to
give more power to local governments in promoting the economic conditions, social
welfare and material progress of the people in the community. The only exceptions
under Section 12 of the Local Autonomy Act (R.A. 2264) are existing vested rights
arising out of a contract between a province, city or municipality on one hand and
a third party on the other hand. Said case is not present in this petition.

Resolution No. 27 s-1960 declaring the western part of EDSA as an industrial and
commercial zone was passed in the exercise of police power to safeguard or promote
the health, safety, peace, good order and general welfare of the people in the
locality.
 National Power Corporation vs. Benjamin Ong Co
February 10, 2009

This case is a petition for certiorari under rule 45 which seeks the reversal of
the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals

Facts:
Petitioner in this case was established by RA 6395 to develop hydroelectric
generation of power and the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal and
other sources, as well as the transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis
with the right to eminent domain.
Hence, Petitioner expropriated respondent’s property for its Lahar Project, a
project for public use

Complaint was filed at the RTC which appointed 3 commissioner to determine the fair
market value of the property.
TThereafter, petitioner obtained a writ of possession and on 15 April 2002 it took
possession of the property.

The RTC ordered the compensation of the full market value of the land valued at
P1,179,000.00, with interest at 6% per annum beginning 15 April 2002, the date of
actual taking, until full payment.

RA 8974 sets forth the payment of land’s full market value as distinguished to RA
6395 which entitles the land owner to only 10% of market value.

Petitioner argues that compensation should only be an easement fee and not the
total value and that computation of compensation should be determined as of the
date of the filing of the complaint as provided under Rule 67.

Issues:

Whether or not compensation will be governed by provisions on RA 6395 or RA 8974?

Who will determine?

Whether or not value of the property should be reckoned as of the filing of the
complaint or actual taking of the land?

Held:

The Court in this jurisdiction RA 8974 should govern. Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 8974 explicitly include power generation, transmission and distribution
projects among the national government projects covered by the law. R.A. No. 8974
should govern the expropriation of respondent's property since the Lahar Project is
a national government project.

The Court also held that the function for determining just compensation remains
judicial in character. It held that the courts have the power to determine cases
relative to the violations on the guarantees provided by the Bill of Rights.

As to the amount to be given to respondent as compensation, the court agreed with

petitioner that compensation should be computed as of the filing of complaint
(2001) in compliance with Rule 67.

Rule 67 clearly provides that the value of just compensation shall "be determined
as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint,
whichever came first."
In the case that was cited by the court, It held that just compensation is to be
ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
Hence, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of
the complaint.

Resident marine mammals vs reyes

g.r.# 180771, april 21, 2015

This case is a Petition filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

FACTS

Petitioners, collectively referred to as the "Resident Marine Mammals" in the

petition, are the toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species,
which inhabit the waters in and around the Tañon Strait.
They are joined by their legal guardians and as friends (to be collectively known
as "the Stewards") who allegedly empathize with, and seek the protection of, the
aforementioned marine species.

Also impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner is former President Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo, for her express declaration and undertaking in the ASEAN Charter to protect
the Tañon Strait, among others.

The Government of the Philippines, acting through the DOE, entered into a
Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract with JAPEX.
This contract involved geological and geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait.

The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, and reprocessing of seismic
and magnetic data.

JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well
as oil and gas sampling in Tañon Strait.

JAPEX committed to drill one exploration well during the second sub-phase of the
project.

Thereafter, the EMB of DENR an ECC to the DOE and JAPEX for the offshore oil and
gas exploration project in Tañon Strait.

14 Months later, o JAPEX began to drill an exploratory well, with a depth of 3,150
meters, near Pinamungajan town in the western Cebu Province.15 This drilling lasted
until February 8, 2008.

In this case the Respondents Argues that the resident marine mamals and stewards
have no legal standing to file the petition.

ISSUE
Whether or not petitioners have locus standi/whether or not animals or even
inanimate objects should be given legal standing

(YES)
a) In the case,Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B. Morton,cited by petitioners, it was held
that animals and even inanimate objects, such as a ship, corporation, valley, and
river, are parties in litigation.

b) The primary reason animal rights advocates and environmentalists seek

to give animals and inanimate objects standing is due to the need to comply
with the strict requirements in bringing a suit to court.

c)In the Philippine jurisdiction,locus standiin environmental cases has been given
a more liberalized approach.To that effect, the Court passed the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective April 29,
2010)which allow for a "citizen suit," and permit any Filipino citizen to
file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws.

d) The rationale was to liberalize standing for all cases filed enforcing
environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct
interest,on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.

e) The Stewards have legal standing –they are joined as real parties in
the Petition and not just in representationof the named cetacean species
for having shown in their petition that there may be possible violations
of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals.