1

CASE DIGESTS in Natural Resources & Environmental Law

1. Republic v Cortez GR 197472

Facts: Respondent Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr. (Rev. Cortez), a missionary by vocation engaged in
humanitarian and charitable activities, established an orphanage and school in Punta Verde, Palaui Island,
San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan. He claimed that since 1962, he has been in... peaceful possession of
about 50 hectares of land located in the western portion of Palaui Island in Sitio Siwangag, Sta. Ana,
Cagayan... with the help of Aetas and other people under his care, cleared and developed for agricultural
purposes to support his... charitable, humanitarian, and missionary work.
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving for military purposes a parcel of the
public domain situated on Palaui Island. Pursuant thereto, 2,000 hectares of the southern half portion of
Palaui Island have withdrawn from sale or... settlement and reserved for the use of the Philippine Navy
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring Palaui Island and the surrounding waters
situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as marine reserve
According to him, some members of the Philippine Navy, upon orders of Biñas, disturbed his peaceful and
lawful possession of the said 50-hectare portion of Palaui Island when on March 15, 2000, they
commanded him and his men, through the use of force... and intimidation, to vacate the area.
the OSG pointed out that Rev. Cortez admitted during trial that he filed the Petition for an injunction on
behalf of the indigenous cultural communities in Palaui Island and not in his capacity as pastor or
missionary
He also claimed that he has no interest in the land. Based on these admissions, the OSG argued that the
Petition should have been dismissed outright because it did not include the name of the indigenous
cultural communities.

Issue: Whether Rev. Cortez is entitled to a final writ of mandatory injunction.

Ruling: We grant the Petition.

the Court notes that while Rev. Cortez relies heavily on his asserted right of possession, he, nevertheless,
failed to show that the subject area over which he has a claim is not part of the public domain and
therefore can be the proper object of possession.
Accordingly, the final injunction issued in this case is ordered DISSOLVED, and the Petition for
Injunction in Spl. Civil Action Case No. II-2403, DISMISSED.

Principles:
"Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is directed either to do a particular
act, in which case it is called a mandatory injunction, [as in this case,] or to refrain from doing a particular
act, in which case it is called a prohibitory... injunction.
 2
It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.
"Two requisites must concur for an injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the
acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Chaves v Public Estates Authority GR 133250

FACTS: The Public Estates Authority is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation
projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR insofar as reclaimed or
about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.

PEA sought the transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the
Freedom Islands. PEA also sought to have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay to
AMARI.

ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid.

HELD: No. Allowing 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.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands,
now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. The
592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public
domain. 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. Furthermore, 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Ramos-Balalio v Ramos GR 168464

FACTS:
● Petitioner Zenaida and her brother Alexander (now deceased) are the children of spouses Susana
Bueno and Abundio Ramos. The spouses started occupying Lot No. 204 in 1938. Abundio died in
1944.

● Susana met her second husband, respondent Eusebio Ramos in 1946, with whom she had five
children, one of whom is respondent Rolando.
 3

● Respondent Evanglisto Ramos bought his land to Alexander Ramos, one of Susana Ramos’ heirs.

● Before 1958, Susana discovered that Felimon Domingo applied for a Sales patent over the subject
parcel of land which she opposed. The Bureau of Lands resolved the dispute in favor of Susana as
she and her children has established their right over the land based on their continuous occupation
and cultivation and their valuable improvements thereon.

● While the court decided in favor of Susana Ramos (rejecting the Sales Application of Felimon
Domingo and excluding a northwestern portion of the land as the same will be reserved as a barrio
cemetery), she was directed to file a new application for homestead (which was never filed, as to
make the story short).

● (Balik tayo pano napapunta ung lupa sa petitioner at sa respondent) Susana always accompanies
her husband, Eusebio (2nd husband, who is a soldier too), wherever he is assigned. So George
Bueno, Susana’s Fudra, and Zenaida, the junakis, continued the cultivation and possession of the
land. Susana then sold the land to the petitioner, who then partitioned the land to herself, her
brother Alexander and respondent Rolando and his siblings. The partition was not registered but
there was a Deed of Sale in favor of Rolando and Alexander.

● Zenaida mortgaged her part of the land in question, she then learned that Rolando and Eusebio
usurped her share, and after settling the mortgage she filed a case for recovery of inheritance,
possession, and damages with a petition for preliminary mandatory injunction.

● The court ruled in favor of Zenaida. The same was appealed to the CA.

● It was found that neither Zenaida nor Alexander complied with the homestead application
requirement to acquire a superior right. So CA reversed RTC ruling and DISMISSED the petition
as well as the “Answer in Intervention” of respondents.
○ Sabi ni CA Considering that they (petitioner and respondent) have no vested right over the
subject parcel of land which is still a part of the public domain, the contract dividing the
property cannot be enforced Since Susana never filed homesteads she has no ownership of
the land, therefore, ownership cannot be transmitted to her heirs. (kaya wala mana si
Eusebio, so as si Alexander, kaya in effect wala kwenta ung bilihan ni Alexander at ni
Evangelisto)

ISSUE/S: 1. W/N the subject land is still a public domain

2. W/N the petitioner has a better right over the land in question due to her open and continuous
possession of the same

VII. Holding/Ruling of The Court: Petition is partly meritorious.

VIII. Ratio Decidendi: // RULING:

 4

1. YES. Evidence shows that Zenaida’s parent has not filed any homestead patent. The decision of the
Bureau of Lands in 1958 only addressed Zenaida’s family’s right of preference over the land, as to their
possession and cultivation. It bears stressing that the Bureau of Lands ordered the filing of an appropriate
application for its registration that indicates that as of that time there is no valid application filed. So the
purported between Zenaida and her mother cannot be given effect, for reason that Susana cannot sell what
does not belong to her. Hence, nullifies the partition of the property among Zenaida, Alexander and
Rolando, and his siblings because Zenaida could not dispose of the land she does not own, so Eusebio and
Rolando cannot claim any right whatsoever as heirs of Susana. Thus, the land in question remains to be
part of the public domain and belongs to the State.

2. YES. Zenaida has proven prior possession of the portion of land she claims as her share, which
possession antedates the filing of the homestead application. She produced evidence showing that she has
filed a verified application for the registration of the land with the Bureau of Lands on August 10, 1971,
which is still pending. The documents remain uncontested and the application has not been assailed by any
of the parties to the case.

She alleged that during the lifetime of her mother, she and her maternal grandfather cultivated and
occupied the land. Moreover, Zenaida presented tax declarations both in her name and that of her
predecessor-in-interest (mother Susana Bueno) covering the property.

As held from previous cases, although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least
constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.

The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one’s sincere and
honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other
interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.

Hence, petitioner Zenaida’s uncontested and verified application for a homestead patent coupled with her
open and notorious occupation of the land convinces us of her preferential right to possess the land
claimed, which entitles her to be protected by the law in such possession.

IX. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated February 16, 2005, is MODIFIED, insofar as to grant petitioner Zenaida Ramos-Balalio
preferential possession of the portion of Lot 204, Pls-15, situated in Muñoz, Roxas, Isabela, as delineated
in the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23, dated July 17, 1996. SO
ORDERED

_____________________________________________________________________________________
 5
4. Republic v. Naguiat GR 134209

FACTS:
Celestina Naguiat applied for registration of title to four parcels of land located in Panan, Botolan, and
Zambales. The applicant alleges that she is the owner of the said parcels of land having acquired them by
purchase from its previous owners and their predecessors-in-interest who have been in possession thereof
for more than thirty (30) years; and that to the best of her knowledge, said lots suffer no mortgage or
encumbrance of whatever kind nor is there any person having any interest, legal or equitable, or in
possession thereof.

The Petitioner Republic opposed on the ground that neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest
has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the lands in question
since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto, because she has not established that the lands in question have been
declassified from forest or timber zone to alienable and disposable property.

ISSUE:
Did the areas in question cease to have the status of forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain?

HELD:
No, the said areas are still classified as forest land. The issue of whether or not the respondent and her
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, exclusive, and continuous possession of the parcels of land in
question is of little moment. For, unclassified land cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or
possession; occupation thereof in the concept of owner, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership
and be registered as the title.
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply
because loggers or settlers have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may
be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not
have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way places. The classification is merely descriptive of its legal
nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land looks like.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

5. Bureau of Forestry v. CA GR L-37995

Facts: In 1961, Mercedes Diago applied for the registration of 4 parcels of land situated in Buenavista,
Iloilo containing an approximate area of 30.5 hectares. She alleged she occupied said parcels of land
having bought them from the estate of the late Jose Ma. Nava who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands in
turn from Canuto Gustilo in 1934.

The Director of Lands opposed the application on the ground that neither the applicant nor her
predecessors-in-interest has sufficient title over the lands applied for, which could be registered under the
Torrens systems, and that they have never been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of
the said lands for at least 30 years.
 6

The Director of Forestry also opposed on the ground that certain portions of the lands, with an area of
approximately 19.4 hectares are mangrove swamps and are within a Timberland Block. In 1965, Filomeno
Gallo purchased the subject parcels of land from Mercedes Diago and moved to be substituted in place of
the latter, attaching to his motion an Amended Application for Registration of Title.

Philippine Fisheries Commission also moved to substitute petitioner Bureau of Forestry as opposition,
since supervision and control of said portion have been transferred from the Bureau of Forestry to the
PFC.

In April 1966, the trial court rendered its decision ordering the registration of the 4 parcels of land in the
name of Filomeno Gallo. It ruled that although the controverted portion of 19.4 hectares are mangrove and
nipa swamps within a Timberland Block, petitioners failed to submit convincing proof that these lands are
more valuable for forestry than for agricultural purposes, and the presumption is
that these are agricultural lands.

Issue: WON the classification of lands of the public domain by the Executive Branch of the Government
into agricultural, forest, or mineral can be changed or varied by the court. NO.

Ruling: Admittedly, the controversial area is within a timberland block classified and certified as such by
the Director of Forestry in 1956. The lands are needed for forest purposes and hence they are portions of
the public domain which cannot be the subject of registration proceedings. Therefore the land is public
land and there is no need for the Director of Forestry to submit convincing proof that the land is more
valuable for forest purposes than for agriculture.

As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the classification or reclassification of
public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive
Department and not of the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it is not
the court that determines the classification of lands of the public domain but the Executive Branch,
through the Office of the President.

Furthermore, respondents cannot claim to have obtained their title by prescription since the application
filed by them necessarily implied an admission that the portions applied for are part of the public domain
and cannot be acquired by prescription unless the law expressly permits it. It is a rule of law that
possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.

_____________________________________________________________________________________