PUBLIC LAND ACT CA 141
imperfect title of Judicial Legislation, we also have
What is important here is the Regallian
Doctrine. All lands and other natural resources are
owned by the state.
Meaning to say, this is a Spanish origin,
wherein all of the properties of the land belongs to
the King.
As we all know, the particular land that can
only be alienated is agricultural land, but please take
note that agri land should not be agricultural land per
se. it should be first be declared as disposable and
alienable land of the public domain.
So as I said among the lands classified under
the law, only the agricultural land maybe alienated or
disposed. Si it means to say, it is the only land that
can be acquired privately, and by when you say
acquired privately, it includes there acquisitive
prescription. Which is 30 of bad faith, you should
have OCEAN, open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession, and occupation on the land.
Meaning to say, if the land is not agri land per se but
actually forest land, that will not ripen into ownership
even though the occupation and ownership has been
since time immemorial, the occupancy is that will not
ripen into ownership. Since the land in the first place
is not an agri land.
How can you acquire ownership of such land?
There is a need first to convert the land into
an agricultural land, and afterwards it should be
declared as A and D of the public domain. All of
these are participated by the President as the Chief
Executive. There should be a positive act of the Govt
through the issuance of the President or by
legislation. And also please do not forget that aside
from being declared as A and D land. These lands
should be preserved for public or semipublic
purposes, such as for military site purposes, medical
site, just like in SPMC. Dapat hindi cia reserved in
particular purpose, because even if the land is
agricultural land, alienable and disposable but it is
reserved for a specific purpose, the occupation and
ownership for such land will not ripen into ownership
no matter how long. It is not disposable in nature
now, it is now preserved for Govt purposes.
Just read other type of ownership.
We have confirmation of incomplete or
patent, sale, just read them. I Will no longer dwell on
them. You already cover that in your LTD.
With regard to the classification of land as A
& D land, please take note of the cases of Republic
vs CA and Naguit, and Republic vs CA and Bernabe.
If you can remember in Naguit, what is
required at the time of the filing of the confirmation of
imperfect title, it is only required at the time of the
application to be A and D land. It does not need that
the land should be A & D land from the time of
application in order to be confer with the imperfect
title. This is different with the Bernabe case, the land
in the outset is a forest land. So at the time of the
application in the bernabe case, the land was
declared reclassified into agricultural land and
declared A and D land. Here, the counting of the
years should start at the time of the occupation. So
magkaiba sila na cases.
Another thing I want to point is the torrens
system, once there is already a patent awarded or
imperfect title has been conferred with, naturally, the
land ROD should issue a certificate of title. Such
certificate of title is indefeasible. Meaning cannot be
revoked at any time except for other grounds such as
fraud, etc.
Now, aside from that, the doctrine you should
remember in LTD is the mirror doctrine, meaning to
say, a person may only rely upon the face of the title.
The person is not obligated to do extra effort in
checking if the torrens title if legit.
So if there is already a torrens title, such as
yung OCT and TCT, that is indefeasible, and cannot
be collaterally attacked, meaning it cannot be
attacked by collaterally, it should be attacked by
direct actions, so the filing should be cancellation of
title, hindi siya pwedeing I attack with regard to
collaterally. Say for example in settlement of estate,
doon pa sinabi na the property should not be under
the estate of the deceased because the title was
procured by fraud. So that should not be the case.
That should not be defeated by collateral attack.
That’s the most important thing you should
remember with the Public Land Act.
REVISED FORESTRY CODE PD 705
As I have mentioned, forest land, the definition
should not rely on physical aspect or form of the
land. Kahit na barren yung land, it is still forest as
long as it is not declared as otherwise. Because to do
so, would give premium to illegal loggers who will
discriminately deforest the land.
Among the definition of terms enumerated, provided
under the law, I would like you to familiarize with the
terms lease, license, license agreement, and permit.
(bb) Lease is a privilege granted by the State to a
person to occupy and possess, in consideration of a
specified rental, any forest land of the public domain
in order to undertake any authorized activity therein.
(cc) License is a privilege granted by the State to a
person to utilize forest resources as in any forest
land, without any right of occupation and possession
over the same, to the exclusion of others, or
establish and operate a wood-processing plant, or
conduct any activity involving the utilization of any
forest resources.
(dd) License agreement is a privilege granted by the
State to a person to utilize forest resources within
any forest land with the right of possession and
occupation thereof to the exclusion of others, except
the government, but with the corresponding
obligation to develop, protect and rehabilitate the
same in accordance with the terms and conditions
set forth in said agreement.
(ee) Permit is a short-term privilege or authority
granted by the State to a person to utilize any limited
forest resources or undertake a limited activity with
any forest land without any right of occupation and
possession therein.
Among these enumerations, only the license
agreement has the right of possession and
occupation to the exclusion of others, except the
government.
Please take note that it is under the ambit of
the Government or the Executive Branch to
determine Policies with regards to the management
of forest resources and the courts are not allowed to
intervene.
So if a matter is within the authority of the
DENR, please take if there are still remedies
available, the parties should exhaust administrative
remedies because, under the new rules, it could be a
ground for dismissal. Although in the latest
amendment, it’s no longer a ground for dismissal per
se, but you can file that as affirmative defense, when
case is is filed against you.
As mentioned here, importante itong principle
of intergenerational responsibility, and in the case of
Oposa vs facturan. We know that timber license
agreements are not contracts; they are mere
privileges that can be cancelled by the Govt or the
state if so required.
As mentioned in the case, the petitioners
asked for cancellation of timber license agreements,
because by issuing such agreement, there is
possibility that the forest will be gone, and it will
affect the generations to come. That’s why the term
intergenerational responsibility was coined.
We have to compare it, the timber license
agreement to an FTAA. Compared to FTAA, TLA
was declared by the SC as a mere agreement, while
an FTAA is considered a contract of property right
that should be protected by due process of law. That
should not be impaired by mere cancellation.
What is not the difference between the two?
In TLA, if such agreement is terminated, the
licensees will just leave the forest, get there
equipment and tools and leave. They will just the
traces of their activities. Whereas in FTAA involving
example large mining activity, the mere cancellation
will not only entail damages but big damages by
itself, these foreign companies who are engaged in
FTAA have already spent billions of pesos in order to
operate. It would be unfair to them, that such
agreement (FTAA) will be immediately terminated.
The cancellation of mining contract will
deprive the contractor of its investments, most of
which cannot be PULLED? Kasi nga with regard to
mining act, large scale, it involves a lot of money,
maghuhukay, etc. maraming pera ang na invest na.
Part of the power of the DENR in order to
protect the forest is the authority of the Forest
Officers.
Now, with regard of wild life, you can kill wild
life for the purpose of protection of life, health, safety,
and property, convenience of the people. It should
not be for profit purposes.
Speaking of offenses or prohibition under the
law, we have pls take note of Sec 68 of the Law.
We have cutting, gathering, collecting timber or
other forest products without license.
 In particular, I am talking about the case of
People vs Que, and mustang lumber vs CA. You
should remember these cases.
What is important in the PEOPLE VS QUE,
the SC said that actually section 68 of PD 705 has
two distinct offenses:
1. It prohibits the cutting, gathering,
collecting, and removing timber and other
forest productions in any forest lands,
from A & D land, and or from private land
without any authority; and
2. The possession of timber or other forest
products without legal documents
required under existing forest laws and
regulations.
As mentioned in the book, it was mentioned
here that there are two separate offense, which are
the mere possession itself without the required legal
document is itself a consummated act, so yuou are
already can be found guilty of the offense if you have
possession of timber and other forest products
without the legal documents.
What was not captured here was the other
issue with regards to under existing forest laws and
regylations. Que here argued that he should not be
liable for the offense since there are no other existing
forest laws and regulation other than the PD 705
which required other legal documents.
The SC said that it’s not correct, the correct
interpretation there is there are existing laws or
regulation at the time if the violation. During the time
when Que was arrested, the DENR required certain
documents such as (CHECK THE TERM SA CASE)
unfortunately, Que did not have such documents at
the time of the arrest. In the end, Que was found
guilty for violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
With regards to the case of Mustang
Lumber, pls take note that the petitioner here moved
to quash the information because he said that the
lumber is not a timber. What is prohibited under the
law is timber only. And not lumber, but the SC said
no. The lumber is a refined/processed log or timber.
Still included in the definition of timber. Aside from
that, there are other prohibited act such as kaingin.
Illegal occupation or national parks system
and re-creation and vandalism therein. And survey of
unauthorized persons.
With regards to search and seizure without
warrant in cases presented by Agcaoili such s
Mustang lumber, and people vs Que, the SC
said this is actually exceptions to the rule to
the unreasonable searches and seizures
because this involves search of a moving
vehicle. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE IF
ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES. Fruit of the poisonous tree.
With regards to people small scale
mining act. It is important to remember the
definition of small scale mining, and you
distinguish it with large scale mining.
In SMALL SCALE MINING, it refers to mining
activities that rely heavily on manual labor
using simple tools and methods. It does not
use explosive or heavy mining equipment and
only required small mining investment.
As I’ve mentioned before, the FTAA is
not applicable in small mining because FTAA
Involves large scale exploration. Under the
Law, the state may enter into:
1. Co-production;
2. Joint venture; or
3. Production share agreement with small
scale miners.
With regards to minahan ng bayan, it involves certain
ancestral domain, there must be free and prior
consent from the ICC. And provided that such, if
there are such declared as minahang bayan, the
member of the ICC shall be given parity as small
scare mining contractors.
Coal Development Act of 1976
This law only aims to promote accelerated
explorations, development, production, and utilization
of coal.
What is important here to note is the
incentives to operators, and incentives to coal users.
These incentives are given in order to attract new
operators and users of coal products in order to
utilize our resources.
By the way, pls take note of the Principle JUS
PRINCIPLE. The land of the state may be utilized for
any other purposes, not only for one purpose. For
example, the forest land, it can be used for extracting
the forest resources as well as other exploration
activities such as mining, as long as it will not
contravene with each other. Same goes with coal
devt and other undertaking. Because in particular
land, there is a possibility that especially for new, na
hindi pa na discover kung anu resourceds meron jan,
the land can be used for mining or coal operations as
long as kung ano yung available lang na resources.
What is important here you can note are the
incentives to the operators; here are the following
exemptions from all taxes except income tax,
exemption from paying of tariff duties and
compensating tax on importation of Machinery and
equipment.
There are also incentives to COAL USERS,
just read them.
As consistent with Multiple jus principle, if an
operator of a coal operation, that operator may also
cut the trees or timber within the area for use. As
they may be necessary for exploration and
development of the area.
Also included are the water rights that may be
necessary. Need din nila tubig sa operation.
Petroleum Act of 1974
Here what is important is the petroleum act. It
covers operators of all companies who will extract
petroleum in our jurisdiction.
You should compare it to all regulation law. In
all regulation law, it pertains to import of all oils from
foreign resource. Here in petroleum act, it pertains to
resource sa Philippines.
So there are right to explore, develop, utilize
petroleum resources to be granted only to duly
qualified persons by means of concessions.
Under the law, there are 5 kinds of
concessions:
1. Non-exclusive exploration permit; which
grants the permittee the non exclusive rights
to conduct geological or geophysical
exploration on specified area. Here, there are
only 2 yrs of terms for extension of
another 2 years. Pls take note in non-
exclusive exploration permit, the permittee
cannot drill holes, they are only limited to
geological or geophysical explorations.
Contra extinguishes it to exploration
concession which grants the
concessioner the exclusive rights to
explore in specified limited area.
In exploration concession, the term
is already 4 yrs but can be extended for
amother 4 yrs but cannot exceed PILA KA
YRS? PITLA UY, in term. And here in
exploration concession, the
concessionaire is already allowed to drill
holes, in order to discover petroleum in
the area.
2. Exploitation concession this grants the
concessionaire exclusive right to develop
petroleum productive within specified areas.
Sa exploitation, advanced na siya, during
exploration kasi, hahanapin mo pa kung
meron bang oil jan, if nakita siya, it will
upgraded to exploitation concession. So in
exploitation concession, kukunin mo lang
yung petroleum products underneath the
area. It also has a duration 25 yrs, which shall
be renewed for another 25 yrs.
 3. Refining concession which grants the
concessionaire the right to manufacture or
refine petroleum products or extract its
derivative. Here, pwede na siyang gawing
gasoline.
4. Pipeline concession which grants the
concessionaire the right to provide an operate
pipeline systems for transporting petroleum.
Meaning to say pipeline talaga. There are
instances wherein the exploration area is
under the sea, pipeline concession is from sa
Dagat hanggang sa kanilang tanks.
5. Obligatory concession ibibigay ang
concession na ito if merong ganiton.
Example, the exploitation concession will be
given if the holder of the exploitation
concession. If merong kang the exploitation
concession, a refining concession or pipeline
concession may be given to you. Take note
that refining concession and pipeline
concession may be separate. And lastly,
refining concession may be given to holder of
pipeline concession or a pipeline concession
to the holder of refining concession, because
they are not strictly related to each other.
41: 20 ka start
Pipeline Concessionaire as Common carrier
Common carrier (Article 1732, NCC)
- Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a
common carrier as "(a) person, corporation or firm, or
association engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,
water or air, for compensation, offering their services
to the public."
Common carriers are obliged to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods transported by them.
First Phil. Industrial Corp vs CA
A pipeline concessionaire is a common
carrier. The petitioner is engaged in the business of
transporting or carrying goods like petroleum
products, for hire as a public employment.
Take Note: The definition of common carrier in this
case is only for the purpose of exemption of taxes
and gross receipts of the LGC.
But it does not provide for the principle of
extraordinary diligence. In transportation law,
remember the definition of common carrier. Because
if a person or corporation is considered as it, you
already have to observe extraordinary diligence, and
not allowed to observe only diligence of a good
father.
DEPARTMEN OF ENERGY ACT OF 1992
Perez v LPG Refillers Association
What are the requirements if an
administrative regulation will have the force of penal
law?
For an administrative regulation, such as the
Circular in this case, to have the force of penal law,
(1) the violation of the administrative
regulation must be made a crime by the
delegating statute itself; and
(2) the penalty for such violation must be
provided by the statute itself.
The Circular satisfies the first requirement. 
The law itself penalizes or criminalizes illegal
trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and
overpricing of petroleum products. The Circular only
reflects the Enabling statute.
As for the second requirement, we find that
the Circular is in accord with the law. Under B.P. Blg.
33, as amended, the monetary penalty for any
person who commits any of the acts aforestated is
limited to a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum
of P50,000. Under the Circular, the maximum
pecuniary penalty for retail outlets is P20,000,17 an
amount within the range allowed by law.
Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1996
Tatad vs Secretary of the Department of Energy
RA 8180 was struck down by the Supreme
Court and held it unconstitutional.
This was because Sections 5b, 6 and 9b of
the law actually, instead of promoting competition, It
actually promotes oligopoly or cartel of the Big 3. It
actually failed to meet its purpose which is
supposedly for free competition. It actually prevented
the competition because of the Section 5b which is
the tariff differential. There is a 4% tariff difference. In
section 6, it provides for stocking of inventories. The
players should maintain inventory. And new players
can’t comply with these provisions. Lastly, with
regards to predatory pricing, lamang pa rin yung Big
3. At this time kasi, the Big 3 players have already
been existing.
crude oil as well as the imported petroleum products
are at the flat rate of 3% and it may even be
decreased by the President, if necessary.
With regards to predatory pricing, the
definition itself was already changed. It already
complied with the intention of the law.
Lastly, inventory stocking was already
deleted. So, new players can join now.
In this case, the Supreme Court said that

“In the cases at bar, it cannot be denied that “Price Control is the antithesis of competition.”
our downstream oil industry is operated and controlled
by an oligopoly, a foreign oligopoly at that. Petron, If the state will control the prices, it will not
Shell and Caltex stand as the only major league foster competition. That’s why right now, there are
players in the oil market. All other players belong to the already players in selling petroleum products because
lilliputian league. As the dominant players, Petron, of this.
Shell and Caltex boast of existing refineries of various
capacities. The tariff differential of 4% therefore works
to their immense benefit. Yet, this is only one edge of
the tariff differential. The other edge cuts and cuts deep
in the heart of their competitors. It erects a high barrier
to the entry of new players. New players that intend to
equalize the market power of Petron, Shell and Caltex
by building refineries of their own will have to spend
billions of pesos. Those who will not build refineries but
compete with them will suffer the huge disadvantage of
increasing their product cost by 4%. They will be
competing on an uneven field. The argument that the
4% tariff differential is desirable because it will induce
prospective players to invest in refineries puts the cart
before the horse. The first need is to attract new
players and they cannot be attracted by burdening
them with heavy disincentives. Without new players
belonging to the league of Petron, Shell and Caltex,
competition in our downstream oil industry is an idle
dream.”

This is why the Supreme Court struck down the

law.

Contradistinguish this to the case of:

Garcia vs Corona

RA 8479 is upheld to be valid.

This was upheld because this law did not

include the 3 provisions that were struck down in the
case of Tatad.

The tariff differential of 4% was already

eliminated because here, the tariff duty for all of the