NATRES PRELIMS REVIEWER

Constitutional Provisions

Article I - National Territory

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.

Article II -Declaration of State Principles and Policies

SECTION 15
The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

SECTION 16
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

OPOSAN vs FACTORAN, 1993

- The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The right to a balanced and
healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
- “Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means
the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal
and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.”
- Put a little differently, the minors' 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.

Article III – Bill of Rights

SECTION 9. (Power of Eminent Domain)
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Article XII – National Economy and Patrimony

SECTION 2.
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora
and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.

With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.

The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law.

In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.

SECTION 3.
Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks.

Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted.

Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.

Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall
determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
SECTION 4.
The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground.
Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide, for such
period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.

OH CHO vs DIRECTOR OF LANDS, 1946

- An alien was claiming land wherein he and his predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the lot
from 1880 to the filing of the application for registration on January 17, 1940. In denying the petition, the Court ruled that:
o He failed to show that he or any of his predecessors in interest had acquired the lot from the Government, either by purchase or by grant or
under the laws. All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.
 An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest
since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain.
o Only the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest who had been in possession of the land had the right to register the land in their name under CA
141, and not the applicant who is disqualified.

Secretary of DENR vs YAP, 2008

- Several claimants of lands in Boracay challenged that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82 issued by then President Marcos precluded them
from filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes. The Republic opposed the petition for
declaratory relief. The OSG countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands classified as
"public forest," which was not available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code. In
ruling in favor of the Republic the Court elucidated the Regalian Doctrine.

- The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of
land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be
disposed of for private ownership.

- The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or
claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application
for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.

- Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141.
o Two requisites for judicial confirmation:
 open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land;
 the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
o In the present case, the land was not classified as alienable and disposable, hence remained as State property. Where the land is not alienable
and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.
MINERS ASSOCIATION vs FACTORAN, 1995
- The case involved two administrative orders from DENR issued pursuant to the Executive Order by then President Cory Aquino authorizing the DENR
Secretary to negotiate and enter into, in behalf of the Government, agreements for the utilization of natural resources. In the said orders, the mining
leases or agreements after the effectivity of 1987 Constitution is to be changed to production sharing agreements and failure to submit Letters of Intent
will result to forfeiture of claims. The petitioners challenged the Orders, contending that such is a violation of the non-impairment clause under the
Constitution.

- In denying the petition, the Court ruled:

o That under provisions pertaining all mining claims and quarry permits on private land or quarry license on public land under the old law (PD 463)
contravene Article XII of the Constitution and thus therefore its effectivity is foreclosed. Upon the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on
February 2, 1987, the State assumed a more dynamic role in the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources of the
country.
o Mining leases or agreements granted by the State are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State.
The economic policy on the exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources under Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution could not be any clearer. As enunciated in Article XII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources under the new system mandated in Section 2, is geared towards a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

NARRA NICKEL MINING vs REDMONT CONSOLIDATED, 2015

- Grandfather Rule is “the method by which the percentage of Filipino equity in a corporation is computed, in cases where corporate shareholders are
present, by attributing the nationality of the second or even subsequent tier of ownership to determine the nationality of the corporate shareholder.”
o to attain the Constitutional objective of reserving to Filipinos the utilization of natural resources, one should not stop where the percentage of
the capital stock is 60%
o “Beneficial ownership” of corporations engaged in nationalized activities must reside in the hands of Filipino citizens, nationality requirement is
not satisfied unless Filipinos are the principal beneficiaries in the exploitation of the country’s natural resources
o a corporation that complies with the 60-40 Filipino to foreign equity requirement can be considered a Filipino corporation if there is no doubt as
to who has the “beneficial ownership” and “control” of the corporation. In that instance, there is no need for the application of the Grandfather
Rule. a resort to the Grandfather Rule is necessary if doubt exists as to the locus of the “beneficial ownership” and “control.”
o various indicia that the “beneficial ownership” and “control” of the corporation do not in fact reside in Filipino shareholders but in foreign
stakeholders:
 That the foreign investors provide practically all the funds for the joint investment undertaken by these Filipino businessmen and their
foreign partner;
 That the foreign investors undertake to provide practically all the technological support for the joint venture;
 That the foreign investors, while being minority stockholders, manage the company and prepare all economic viability studies.
REPUBLIC vs CA and DELA ROSA, 1988
- “'The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the lands located, and perfected his location in accordance with law, x x x the lands
had become mineral lands and they were exempted from lands that could be granted to any other person.”
- open, continuous, adverse and exclusive possession to support claim of ownership is not applicable when the subject land is a mineral land, hence not
subject to prescriptive acquisition
- rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land
must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the instant case, as already observed, the land which was originally classified as forest
land ceased to be so and became mineral ---- and completely mineral ---- once the mining claims were perfected.
- Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in public and even private land devoted to "agricultural, industrial, commercial,
residential or (for) any purpose other than mining." Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of
such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the State to which such minerals belong.

LA BUGAL B’LAAN vs RAMOS

- Section 2:
1. All natural resources are owned by the State. Except for agricultural lands, natural resources cannot be alienated by the State.
2. The exploration, development and utilization (EDU) of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.

3. The State may undertake these EDU activities through either of the following:
(a) By itself directly and solely
(b) By (i) co-production; (ii) joint venture; or (iii) production sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations, at least 60 percent of the
capital of which is owned by such citizens

4. Small-scale utilization of natural resources may be allowed by law in favor of Filipino citizens.

5. For large-scale EDU of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, the President may enter into "agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance according to the general terms and conditions provided by law

- FTAA’s
o Permits participation of foreign companies
o the phrase "agreements x x x involving either technical or financial assistance" is not limited to mere financial or assistance only. Under verba
legis, the “involving” is open-ended, does not restrict any other assistance for the proposed project. These agreements necessarily entailed; or
that could reasonably be deemed necessary to make them tenable and effective, including management authority with respect to the day-to-
day operations of the enterprise and measures for the protection of the interests of the foreign corporation, PROVIDED THAT Philippine
sovereignty over natural resources and full control over the enterprise undertaking the EDU activities remain firmly in the State.
o FTAA’s are service contracts that may be entered into only with respect to minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. Requisites:
 General law setting standards, terms, conditions, requirements
 President is signatory
 Report of the President to Congress within 30 days after execution of agreement
 o Constitution does not prohibit financial benefit of foreign entities from such agreements. Compromise is needed so as to achieve progress.

CA 141 – Public Land Act

Sec. 11 – Modes of disposition of public lands

a. Homestead
 citizen of the Philippines over the age of eighteen years, or the head of a family
 only 12 hectares of agricultural land

b. Sale
 citizen of the Philippines over the age of eighteen years, or the head of a family or private corporations and associations can only lease
agricultural lands.
 land must first be appraised before it can be sold through public bidding
 purchaser must have not less than one fifth of the land broken and cultivated within five years after the date of the award
 actual occupancy, cultivation, and improvement of at least one fifth of the land applied for until the date
on which final payment is made" before the issuance of a sales patent.
 12 hectares of agricultural land

c. Lease
 through an auction
 cultivated 1/3 of the land "within five years after the date of the approval of the lease”
 citizens-500 hectares; private corporations and associations-1000 hectares for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years

d. Confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles,

either by administrative legalization (free patent); or
judicial legalization

Class Notes: see also TAAR vs LAWAN

Administrative Judicial
 Through DENR  Courts/RTC
 You apply with the gov’t, petition the state to  The position of the petitioner is that the land is
give the land, land is still of public domain mine
 You don’t have right yet.  Applicant holds an imperfect title to an agricultural
land of public domain
 Royal decrees issued by the Spanish Government
no longer honored
o Remedy: you go to court and let the court
 decide on your claim.

Sec. 44 amended by RA 11573 (Free Patents)

Requirements
- Any natural born citizen
- Not an owner of more than 12 hectares
- At least 20 years prior to the filing of application, continuously occupied and cultivated tracts of agricultural land
- Paid the real estate tax

RA 11231
- Agricultural Free Patents not subject anymore to the restrictions of 118, 119, 121
- Shall not be subject to any restriction on encumbrance or alienation
- Have retroactive effect
- Idea is to raise the value of the land, and to give the land to the farmers

RA 10023 Residential Free Patents

Qualifications
- Any Filipino citizen
- OCENPO under bona fide claim of ownership for at least 10 years
- Only 200 sqm (Highly urbanized); 500 sqm (1 st and 2nd class municipality); 1000sqm (other municipalities)
- No restrictions under 118, 119, 121, 122, 123 shall apply

Special Patents
- May be granted to LGU and national agencies for public purpose
- Lands acquired cannot be disposed unless sanctioned by congress if national agency and by ordinance enacted by sanggunian if LGU

Section 48 as amended by RA 11573 (Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles)

Persons qualified:
- OCENPO-20 years prior to application, except if prevented by war or force majeure
- Those who acquired ownership by accession or accretion
- Those who acquired ownership by any other means provided by law

Sec. 91: Any statements of material misrepresentation, or any modification shall ipso facto cause cancellation of title, concession, permit.

Sec. 101: Reversion of land in favor of government -> through OSG

Sec. 102: Anyone may object to the permit granted (adverse information)

Sec. 105: If the grantee dies, his heirs in law shall succeed, provided they comply with the requirements.
Sec. 109: No land adjacent to water bodies can be granted if detrimental to public interest.

Sec. 110: Land granted does not include the minerals that may be found. All minerals belong to the State.

Sec. 111: Land granted is subject to public servitude, including littoral beside water bodies.

Sec. 112: Land granted is subject to right of way.

Sec. 113: Land granted is subject to regulations regarding beneficial use of water.

Sec. 118: Lands acquired through Patent or Homestead is not subject to encumbrance or alienation
Date or approval of application  issuance of patent + 5 years
Or be liable to any debt contracted prior to expiration of said period.
Expns: (1) fruits/crops may be mortgaged
(2) except of the one receiving the alienated land is the gov’t

Sec. 119: Free Patent/Homestead -> subject to repurchase 5 years from conveyance

Sec. 121: No corporation/association/partnership may acquire title, right to any land granted under free patent
Expns: with consent of grantee and the Secretary of DENR for:
commercial, industrial, educational, religious, charitable, right of way

Sec. 122: Only those authorized may get lands acquired through free patent, homestead, sale
Expns: through succession

Sec. 123: Any persons not authorized to acquire land shall alienate said lands within 5 years, otherwise the property
reverts back to the gov’t.

FEDERATION OF CORON vs Secretary of DENR

- “Thus, the State, through the legislature enacting Act No. 2874 and C.A. No. 141, delegated to the Executive Branch the power to classify lands of public
domain and finally removed from the courts the power to classify such.”
- Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State
remain part of the inalienable public domain.
- Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
- Occupation of a land classified as forest in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as title.

REPUBLIC vs IAC
- Constitutional Prohibition (no private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of public domain) does not apply to private properties.
REPUBLIC vs SPS. REGULTO
- "a legal easement of right-of-way exists in favor of the Government over land that was originally a public land awarded by free patent even if the land is
subsequently sold to another."
- In other words, lands granted by patent shall be subject to a right-of-way not exceeding 60 meters in width for public highways, irrigation ditches,
aqueducts, and other similar works of the government or any public enterprise, free of charge, except only for the value of the improvements existing
thereon that may be affected.

BARTOLATA vs REPUBLIC
- RA 730  Under its plain meaning, only public lands acquired by qualified applicants without public auction and for residential purposes are free from
any restrictions against encumbrance or alienation. The provision is inapplicable to property which was awarded through public auction.

TAAR vs LAWAN
- Petitioners, in choosing to apply for free patents, acknowledged that the land covered by their application still belongs to the government and is still part
of the public domain. Lands of public domain cannot be subject to judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
- The validity or invalidity of free patents granted by the government and the corresponding certificates of title is a matter between the grantee and the
government. Sec. 101 of CA 141.

BASILIO vs LUCERO and CALLO

- A land acquired through default of mortgage is cannot be applied for a free patent for two reasons: (1) pactum commissorium, prohibited by law, one
does not acquire ownership of the mortgaged property upon mortgagor default, it must be foreclosed and the property must be sold at a foreclosure
sale; (2) OCENPO of 30 years.
- Expn to Sec. 101: Thus, a private individual may bring an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land even if the title thereof was issued through a free
patent to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.

CONSORCIA vs CA
- sale of a homestead within the 5-year prohibitive period is void ab initio and the same cannot be ratified nor can it acquire validity through the passage
of time.

- Ordinarily the principle of pari delicto would apply to her because her predecessor-in-interest has carried out the sale with the presumed knowledge of
its illegality, but because the subject of the transaction is a piece of public land, public policy requires that she, as heir, be not prevented from re-
acquiring it because it was given by law to her family for her home and cultivation. This is the policy on which our homestead law is predicated.

- This right cannot be waived. 'It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve.'

GAUVAIAN vs CA
- "In Simeon v. Peña we analyzed the various cases previously decided, and arrived at the conclusion that the plain intent, the raison d' etre, of Section
119, C.A. No. 141 '. . . is to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the state had gratuitously
given to him as a reward for his labor in cleaning and cultivating it.' In the present case, petitioner is not a farmer but rather a businessman who used
said lands for commercial purposes.
 - Before, the governing case law was Belisario vs IAC, “The five-year period of redemption fixed in Section 119 of the Public Land Law of homestead sold at
extrajudicial foreclosure begins to run from the day after the expiration of the one-year period of repurchase allowed in an extrajudicial foreclosure.”

-The current governing case law is now Monge vs Angeles, “five year period of repurchase should be counted from the date of conveyance or foreclosure
sale.”
MALABANAN vs REPUBLIC
- public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express
government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under
Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public
dominion begin to run.
o First, through registration
o Second, extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person's uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years,
regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.

CAPISTRANO vs LIMCUANDO
- Indeed, petitioner's successive conveyances of the disputed land for valuable consideration to different vendees clearly indicate the profit-making
motive of petitioner and her lack of intention to preserve the land for herself and her family.

HEIRS OF MARAVILLA vs TUPAS

- if its forest cover has been replaced by beach resorts, restaurants and other commercial establishments, it has not been automatically converted from
public forest to alienable agricultural land.
The above reasoning of the CA has its basis on a simple logic that one cannot dispose of a thing he does not own. In this case, at the time of
the sale of the subject property, the late Asiclo S. Tupas had no right to sell a property that has not been declared alienable by the State;
hence, he cannot pass unto another any right of title to own or possess the land.
- A final judgement is stayed by a supervening event, in this case the landmark case of Secretary of DENR vs Yap.

REPUBLIC vs VALENTINA
- Since cadastral proceedings are governed by the usual rules of practice, procedure, and evidence, a cadastral decree and a certificate of title are issued
only after the applicant proves all the requisite jurisdictional facts-that they are entitled to the claimed lot, that all parties are heard, and that evidence is
considered. As such, the cadastral decree is a judgment which adjudicates ownership after proving these jurisdictional facts.
- In this reversion proceeding, the State must prove that there was an oversight or mistake in the inclusion of the property in Espinosa' s title because it
was of public dominion.
- To allow a reversion based on a classification made at the time when the property was already declared private property by virtue of a decree would be
akin to expropriation of land without due process of law.

VENUS BAGUIO vs HEIRS OF ABELLO

- Action for reversion (state ownership) vs action for nullity (plaintiff’s ownership)
“The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified.
 - In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. x x x x x and that the only
person or entity entitled for relied would be the Director of Lands.
- On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff's ownership
of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant's fraud or mistake.”

Reorganization Act of DENR EO 192 (1987)

RA 3931 as amended in 1976 by PD 984 - National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission (Pollution Control Law)

EO 192 transferred to the PAB (Pollution Adjudication Board) the powers and function of the National Pollution and Control Commission provided in RA
3931 as amended by PD. 984

Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB)

 PAB is headed by DENR Secretary

 Decision of the PAB is appealable to CA directly via Rule 43 (quasi-judicial agencies such as COMELEC).
 It is not under the structural organization of the DENR since it is a board (aggregation of individuals headed by DENR Secretary; EMB acting as
the secretariat)
 It is not an office, or a building, but a board.

Shell Philippines vs. Jalos Sec. 2(a), PD 984 defines pollution as:

(a) "Pollution" means any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of any water, air
and/or land resources of the Philippines, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or solid wastes as will or
is likely to create or to render such water, air and land resources harmful, detrimental or injurious to public
health, safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utililization for domestic, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate purposes.

Functions of PAB (because of the reorganization made in EO 192)

 Has the power to determine the location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects of water
pollution.
 Serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparation, or restitution of the damages and
losses resulting from the pollution.
 Has the power to conduct hearings, impose penalties for violation of PD 984 and issue writs of
execution to enforce its orders and decisions.

Note:
 PAB’s final decisions may be reviewed by the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of court.
 Pollution cases (administrative recourse) – resort must first be made to the PAB (before filling
complaint with the regular courts), which is the agency possessed of expertise in determining pollution-
related matters. Pending, prior determination by the PAB, courts cannot take cognizance of the
complaint.
 Orders of SENR (Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources) are appealable to the Office
of the President

The assailed Orders were not issued by the PAB but by the SENR. Thus, the appropriate remedy from the Orders
Maynilad vs. Secretary of DENR of the SENR is an appeal to the Office of the President.

Consequently, the petitioners prematurely filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. These erroneous procedural steps effectively rendered petitioners’
appeals dismissible, resulting in the finality of the Orders of the SENR.

 It is worth stressing that the courts generally accord great respect, if not finality, to factual findings of
administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their
jurisdiction.
Summit One vs. Pollution
Adjudication

Since SOCC failed to show that the PAB and EMB-NCR have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, this Court cannot entertain the
instant petition questioning their rulings.
Local Government and Environmental Laws
 Section 2(c) and 27 of the Local Government Code of 1991 applies only to the national
programs and/or projects which are to be implemented in a particular community.

 Section 27 (Prior Consultation ; Prior Approval) of the Code should be read in conjunction
with Section 26.

The projects and programs mentioned in Section 27 should be interpreted to mean projects and programs whose
effects are among those enumerated in Section 26 which:
Lina vs. Pano  may cause pollution
 may bring about climatic change
 may cause the depletion of non-renewable resources
 may result in loss of crop land, range-land, or forest cover
 may eradicate certain animal or plant species from the face of the planet; and
 other projects or programs that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in the
locality where these will be implemented.

Boracay Foundation vs. Province The Court found that there was no proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project.
of Aklan
In Province of Rizal v. Executive Secretary, the Court emphasized that, under the Local
Government Code, two requisites must be met before a national project that affects the
environmental and ecological balance of local communities can be implemented: (1) prior
 consultation with the affected local communities, and (2) prior approval of the project by the appropriate
sanggunian. The absence of either of such mandatory requirements will render the project’s implementation as
illegal.

Approval of Sanggunian = duty of the Local Government Code to protect

The approval of the Sanggunian concerned is required by law, not because the local government has
control over such project, but because the local government has the duty to protect its constituents and their
stake in the implementation of the project. Again, Section 26 states that it applies to projects that "may cause
pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland,
or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species."
DENR vs. PICOP
The local government should thus represent the communities in such area, the very people who will
be affected by flooding, landslides or even climatic change if the project is not properly regulated, and who
likewise have a stake in the resources in the area and deserve to be adequately compensated when these
resources are exploited.

 SM are mistaken in their claim that there was no need for a new ECC. It did not provide relevant
information as to whether the trees were planted or naturally grown which was crucial to determine if
the affected tress were natural or residual forest.
Cordillera Global Network vs. Paje
 It does not escape this Court's attention that both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
missed private respondents' application for the cutting of 182 trees—in addition to 112 already
allowed in the earlier Environmental Compliance Certificate—merely through an amended
Environmental Compliance Certificate and almost nine (9) years after the original had been used.
Republic vs. Provincial
Government of Palawan
Local Government Unit (Constitution) = Territorial Jurisdiction (LGC) = Territorial boundaries
(physical location/ Land area) of LGU

While "territorial jurisdiction" does not appear in the Constitution, it is inscribed in the Local
Government Code which is the law meant to implement the constitutional mandate under Article X, Section 7.
The Local Government Code provides that local government units shall be entitled to a 40% share in the
gross collection the State derives from the utilization and development of these natural resources "within their
territorial jurisdiction".

To recapitulate, an LGU's territorial jurisdiction refers to its territorial boundaries or to its

territory. The territory of LGUs, in turn, refers to their land area, unless expanded by law to include
the maritime area. Accordingly, only the utilization of natural resources found within the land area as
delimited by law is subject to the LGU's equitable share under Sections 290 and 291 of the Local Government
Code.
III. Specific Environmental Laws

PD 1586 Establishing EIS (Environmental Impact Statement System)

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects.

No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative.

Section 5. Environmentally Non-Critical Projects.

All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be
required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may
however require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.

Section 9. Penalty for Violation.

- Any person, corporation or partnership found violating Section 4 of this Decree, or the terms and conditions in the issuance of the
Environmental Compliance Certificate, or of the standards, rules and regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection
Council pursuant to this Decree shall be
- punished by the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificate or and/or a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of the National Environmental Protection Council.

PROCLAMATION NO. 2146 - Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally Critically and Within the Scope of the Environmental
Impact Statement System Established under Presidential Decree No. 1586.
 in connection to Section 4 of PD 1586 which states that “The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of
the National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical”

DENR-AO No. 2003-30 - Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD No. 1586, Establishing EISS

Section 6. Appeal
Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC / CNC applications may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the following
grounds:
a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or
b. Serious errors in the review findings.

The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures as a means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to avert
unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
Notes from lecture:

 PD 1586 created the EIS System which requires ECC for those projects that have substantial effects on the environment
 CNC can be issued within 15 days ---> the applicant can now start working on the project unlike in ECC which will take years before its issuance and
without it, applicant cannot start on the project.
 To be entitled to CNC it must prove that the project is neither an environmentally critical project nor within the environmentally critical area
 The DENR Secretary has the power to issue cease and desist order
 If ECC is suspended, the operation of the project should also stop

Republic vs. Davao
Special People vs. Canda
Republic vs. O.G. Holdings
 The LGU is not exempted from the compliance with the EIS law because the law mandates that “no
person, partnership or corporation shall operate....” hence LGU is covered;
 What is exempted is the project, if it is not identified as environmentally critical or are within an
environmentally critical area hence covered by CNC (Certificate of Non-Coverage) and not ECC
 Project covered by ECC shall submit EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) - Section 4, PD No. 1586
 Not a ministerial duty
The grant or denial of an application for ECC/CNC is not an act that is purely ministerial in nature, but one that
involve the exercise of judgment and discretion by the EMB Director of Regional Director who must determine
whether the project or project area is classified as critical to the environment based on the documents submitted
by the applicant.
 Failure to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking certiorari before the court --> the
appeal should be made beginning with the Office of the EMB Director ‘
 AO No. 30 provides for an administrative machinery for amending an existing ECC.

Boracay Foundation vs. Province

of Aklan
Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Not exhausted  
Lanzanas  
The decision of the Regional Director may still be elevated to the Office of the Secretary of the
DENR to fully comply with the process of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This failure, renders the
petition dismissible. And a dismissal on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is tantamount
to a dismissal based on lack of cause of action.  
 
 The rules on administrative appeals from rulings of the DENR Regional Directors on the
implementation of PD No. 1586 are found in Article VI of DAO 96-37, which provides: 
  
SECTION 1.0. Appeal to the Office of the Secretary. — Any party aggrieved by the final decision of the
RED may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal with the Office of the Secretary. The
decision of the Secretary shall be immediately executory. 
  
SECTION 2.0. Grounds for Appeal. — The grounds for appeal shall be limited to grave abuse of discretion
and serious errors in the findings of fact which would cause grave or irreparable injury to the aggrieved party.
Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced. 
  
SECTION 3.0. Who May Appeal. — The proponent or any stakeholder, including but not limited to, the
LGUs concerned and affected communities, may file an appeal. 
 
Instead of following the foregoing procedure, petitioners bypassed the DENR Secretary and immediately
filed their complaint with the Manila RTC, depriving the DENR Secretary the opportunity to review the decision
of his subordinate.  

 The Petition should not be dismissed for its failure to observe the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Section 6 of DENR-AO No. 2003-30 shows that the remedy of appeal is only available to a party that
Cordillera Global Network vs. Paje
applied for an environmental compliance certificate or certificate of non-coverage. This is
bolstered by the period provided for the filing of an appeal—within 15 days from receipt of such
decision—since only a party to the application is entitled to receive it.
 The Writ of Kalikasan is not proper because the group failed to prove its constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
Paje vs. Casino  Lack of signature –the signing of the Statement of Accountability is intergral and significant
component of the EIA process and the ECC because it is an assurance that the applicant is bounded to
faithfully comply with the required/necessary conditions
Braga, et al. v. DOTC Secretary
Abaya

PD 1586 – EIS
- Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects

REPUBLIC vs DAVAO
- LGU’s cannot claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. Section 4 of PD 1586 also states that “no person, partnership or corporation shall
undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an ECC.” LGUs are considered juridical persons,
hence, not excluded from said decree.
- City of Davao has sufficiently shown that the project will not have negative environmental impact because it is not an environmentally critical project or
located in an environmentally critical area; hence it is the ministerial duty of DENR to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage.

SPECIAL PEOPLE vs CANDA

- Issuance of CNC and/or ECC is not ministerial as it involves the exercise of judgment and discretion of the EMB Director.
 - Exhaustion of Administrative remedies, invocation of court’s jurisdiction may only be availed upon exhaustion of such remedies so as to allow the
settlement of issue within the agency’s specialized area of competence.

REPUBLIC vs OG HOLDINGS
- There was no grave abuse of discretion in the suspension of the ECC, as the respondent indeed failed to comply with the requirements and
noncompliance is penalized under PD 1586. The petitioners also issued several notices before it came to its lawful decision of suspending the ECC.

BORACAY FOUNDATION vs PROVINCE OF AKLAN

- Pagara v. Court of Appeals, where they clarified that the rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not
applicable where, among others, there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the instant case. The rule may also be
disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy or where the protestant has no other recourse.
- writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be availed of “to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law”
- ECC issued for the one-hectare reclamation cannot be used for the forty-hectare extension of the project.

BRAGA vs DOTC Secretary Abaya

- Duty to initiate EIA and application for ECC is responsibility of the proponent
- Project still at bidding stage cannot be compelled by mandamus, same with the consultation with the sanggunian

PD 705 Forestry Code

FEDERATION OF CORON vs DENR Secretary

- Sec. 3 (a) of P.D. No. 705 states: (a) Public Forest is the mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the subject of the present system of
classification for the determination of which lands are needed for forest purposes and which are not.