NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in
order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government
that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of
law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do
ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
 Function
 Sets down the origin, scope and purpose of the Constitution.
 An aid in ascertaining the meaning of the ambiguous provisions in the body of the
Constitution.
 Origin
 Authorship; The will of the sovereign Filipino People
 Scope and Purpose
 To build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our
ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony,
and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy
under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.
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 PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
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.
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
Oposa v. Factoran
FACTS: The petitioners are minors being represented by their parents who are suing in their
capacity as taxpayers and citizens of the Philippines. They contend that the DENR should cancel
the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) granted to private corporations, in order to protect the
welfare of the future generations. The minors, also invoking the right mentioned in Sec. 16 of
Article II. They state that since the future generations won’t be able to enjoy what they are now
enjoying is in accordance with the principle of intergenerational responsibility and justice.
ISSUE: WON Section 16 of Article II is a source of right thus a source of cause of action.
RULING: Yes. The Court held that such provision is a self-executory provision which should be
correctly administered by the DENR. Even without the presence of the law, it is a natural law,
and therefore must be a source of a cause of action.
 DUE PROCESS OF LAW
 Mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in the enforcement and
application of law (Procedural)
 Prohibition of arbitrary laws (Substantive)
Section 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest.
Valmonte v. Belmonte
FACTS: Petitioner wrote a letter to then GSIS General Manager Respondent, wherein he
requested that he be furnished a list of the Batasang Pambansa Members who were granted a
clean loan of two million pesos each and guaranteed by then First Lady Imelda Marcos.
Before receiving the reply, petitioner wrote again and said that failure to disclose those
information, then he shall be free to do whatever means necessary to legally obtain such
information in the name of public interest.
When the reply was received, the Deputy General Counsel rejected their request.
ISSUE: WON the right to information can be invoked in order to the secure the list.
RULING: Yes. In Legaspi v. CSC, the Court held that it is the constitutional right of the people
to be informed of matters involving public interest and ordered that the government agencies
concerned to act on the petitioner’s prayer.
In this case, since the loans are contributed by the general public, then every person has the right
to access information in order to secure the public’s interest as to how the money is being used.
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
Legaspi v. CSC
FACTS: The petitioners filed for mandamus against the CSC for their refusal to release records
as to the eligibility of his employees in the DOH. Petitioner asked for the eligibility because it is
required for employment in the government service as sanitarians (Mariano Agas and Julian
Sibonghanoy).
ISSUE: WON the right to information can be invoked.
RULING: Yes. The information sought by the petitioners in the claim of eligibility. Since public
office is public trust, it is a legitimate reason for citizens to ensure that the government positions
requiring eligibility shall only be occupied by eligibles. Since eligibility of a sanitarian is a public
concern, it is the duty of the CSC to release such documents. Therefore, CSC must comply with
the request of Legaspi.
ARTICLE XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
 What is the Regalian Doctrine?
 According to Section 2 of Article XII on National Economy:
 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.
 EXCEPTION TO THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE: Agricultural Lands
UNDERSECRETARIES OF THE DENR:
 Secretary: Ramon Paje
 Chief-of-Staff: Atty. Analiza Teh
 Undersecretaries
 Administrative & Information Systems: Atty. Ernesto Adobo, Jr.
 USEC/COS: Atty. Analiza The
 Field Operations: Atty. Demetrio Ignacio, Jr.
 Policy and Planning, and Foreign Assisted Programs: Manuel Gerochi
CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
 Agricultural Lands: lands which are susceptible of growth and suitable for farming purposes;
not limited to crop lands, fisheries, salt beds, fish ponds, etc.; governed by CA 141.
 Forests or Timber Lands
 National Parks
 Mineral Lands
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN:
 Under the Constitution
 Agricultural Lands
 Forests or Timber Lands
 Mineral Lands
 National Parks
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
 Under the Public Land Act
 Alienable or Disposable Lands
 Agricultural
 Residential, Commercial, Industrial or for similar productive purposes
 Educational, Charitable or other similar purposes
 Reservations for Town Sites and for Public and Quasi-Public Purposes.
 Inalienable
 Timber Lands
 Mineral Lands
MODES OF DISPOSING AGRICULTURAL LANDS
 Homestead Patent:
 Who may apply?
 Any citizen of the Philippines over the age of eighteen years, or the head of a family,
who does not own more than twenty-four hectares of land in the Philippines or has
not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotment of more than twenty-four hectares of
land since the occupation of the Philippines by the United States, may enter a
homestead of not exceeding twenty-four hectares of agricultural land of the public
domain.
 Not more than one homestead entry shall be allowed to anyone person, and no
person to whom a homestead patent has been issued by virtue of the provisions of
this Act regardless of the are a of his original homestead, may again acquire a
homestead: Provided, however, that any previous homesteader who has been issued
a patent for less than twenty-four hectares and otherwise qualified to make a
homestead entry, may be allowed another homestead which, together with his
previous homestead, shall not exceed an area of twenty-four hectares
 The Homestead Patent may only be approved by the Director of Lands.
 When will the patent be issued?
 At least one-fifth of the land has been improved and cultivated. The period within
which the land shall be cultivated shall not be less than one nor more than five years
from and after the date of the approval of the application.
 The applicant shall, within the said period, notify the Director of Lands as soon as he
is ready to acquire the title. If at the date of such notice, the applicant shall prove to
the satisfaction of the Director of Lands, that he has resided continuously for at least
one year in the municipality in which the land is located, or in a municipality
adjacent to the same, and has cultivated at least one-fifth of the land continuously
since the approval of the application, and shall make affidavit that no part of said
land has been alienated or encumbered, and that he has complied with all the
requirements of this Act, then upon the payment of five pesos, as final fee, he shall be
entitled to a patent.
 In case the homesteader shall suffer from mental alienation, or shall for any other
reason be incapacitated from exercising his rights personally, the person legally
representing him may offer and submit the final proof on behalf of such incapacitated
person.
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
 Sales Patent:
 Who may apply?
 Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and any such citizen not of lawful age
who is a head of a family, and any corporation or association of which at least sixty
per centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said capital stock belongs wholly
to citizens of the Philippines. and which is organized and constituted under the laws
of the Philippines, and corporate bodies organized in the Philippines authorized
under their charters to do so.
 Not to exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares in the case of an individual and
one thousand and twenty-four hectares in that of a corporation or association.
 EXCEPTION: That persons, corporations, associations or partnerships which, at the
date upon which the Philippine Constitution took effect, held agricultural public
lands or land of any other denomination, that belonged originally, really or
presumptively, to the public domain, or permanent improvements on such lands, or a
real right upon such lands and improvements, having acquired the same under the
laws and regulations in force at the date of such acquisition, shall be authorized to
continue holding the same as if such persons, corporations, associations, or
partnerships were qualified under the last preceding section; but they shall not
encumber, convey, or alienate the same to persons, corporations, associations, or
partnerships not included in section twenty-two of this Act, except by reason of
hereditary succession, duly legalized and acknowledged by competent courts.
 Lease Patent:
 Who may apply?
 Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and any corporation or association of
which at least sixty per centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said capital
stock belongs wholly to citizens of the Philippines, and which is organized and
constituted under the laws of the Philippines, may lease any tract of agricultural
public land available for lease under the provisions of this Act, not exceeding a total
of one thousand and twenty-four hectares. If the land leased is adapted to and be
devoted for grazing purpose, an area not exceeding two thousand hectares may be
granted.
 No member, stockholder, officer, representative, attorney, agent, employee or
bondholder of any corporation or association holding or controlling agricultural
public land shall apply, directly or indirectly, for agricultural public land except under
the home-stead and free patent provisions of this Act
 Free Patents (Administrative Legalization)
 Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not an owner of more than 12 hectares
or those prior the enactment of RA 6940 who has continuously occupied and cultivated
by himself or by his predecessors-in-interest and had already paid real estate tax while it
was not occupied by any person.
 The patent grant shall not exceed 12 hectares.
 Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Titles
 Any citizen of the Philippines occupying lands of public domain and that they have no
perfect or complete titles.
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM



They shall apply first to the RTC; or that
He has applied to purchase prior the transfer of the sovereignty from Spain to USA
by laws or by royal decrees, and has not instituted the proceedings already, but has
not received the title yet; or
Has cultivated and occupied such lands already, through:
 Their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain.
 Bona fide claim; at least 30 years (acquisition)
 Prevented to claim because of force majeure or war.
 Members of the cultural minorities, by themselves or predecessors-in-interest
suitable to agriculture.
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay v. MMDA
 AGENCIES INVOLVED
 MMDA, DENR, DECS, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNPMG, DILG
 Ruling on CROMB v. MMDA:
 Agencies are ordered to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and
maintain its waters to Class B seawaters to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and
other forms of contact recreation to waters.
 The case has reached its finality on January 2009 since no Motion for Reconsideration was
filed, thus the Execution of Judgment.
 The Manila Bay Advisory Committee has thus been created to collect reports and evaluate
the activities herein ordered by the SC.
 The ruling is one of a WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS:
 Issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until the judgment is satisfied.
Social Justice Society v. Atienza
FACTS: On November 20, 2001 the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Manila enacted ON 8027,
approved on November 28, 2001 and effective on December 28, 2001. This is enacted in
pursuant with the Police Power delegated to Local Government Units to enact law within the
constitutional limits. ON 8027 reclassifies the area described therein from industrial to
commercial; directed the owners and operators of businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease
and desist from operating their businesses within six months from the date of the effectivity of
the ordinance, and those who are affected are Caltex, Petron, and Shell which are located in the
Pandacan Terminals.
On June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and Department of Energy entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Oil Companies. They agreed upon the scaling down of the
Pandacan Terminal and asked the immediate removal of twenty-eight tanks starting with the
LPG spheres and the commencing of works for the creation of safety buffers and green zones
surrounding the Pandacan Terminals. They also agreed upon that the Oil Companies shall
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
establish joint operations and management including the operation of common, integrated
and/or shared facilities.
The Sangguniang Panglungsod ratified the MOU in Resolution Number 97 which was effective
only for six months starting July 25, 2002. On January 30, 2003, the Sangguniang Panglungsod
adopted Resolution No. 13 extending Resolution No. 97 to April 30, 2003 authorizing Mayor
Atienza to issue special business permits to the oil companies.
Petitioners filed for mandamus on December 4, 2002 praying that Atienza be compelled to
implement ON 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil companies.
ISSUES:
1. WON respondent has the mandatory legal duty under the LGC to enforce ON 8027 and order
the Removal of the Pandacan Terminals.
2. WON the June 26, 2002 MOU and the Resolutions ratifying it can amend or repeal ON 8027.
RULING:
1. Madamus: employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that is
already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of the law.
2. ON 8027 is only considered repealed when the MOU and the Resolutions are inconsistent
with it. Resolutions are in full force and effective only until April 30, 2003.
West Tower Condominium v. FPI & FGC
TIMELINE: Writ of Kalikasan
 November 15, 2010: Petitioners filed their petition for issuance of a writ of kalikasan. [WOK]
 November 19, 2010: The WOK and TEPO were issued and required FPIC and FGC to
make a verified return within a non-extendible period of ten days from the receipt of the
TEPO.
 TEPO enjoined FPIC and FGC:
 Cease and desist from operating the pipeline until further orders
 Check the structural integrity of the whole span of the 117-kilometer pipeline while
implementing sufficient measures to prevent any untoward incidents that may result
from any leak of the pipeline.
 Make a report within sixty days from receipt.
 FPIC was ordered to cease operations on the White Oil Pipe Line which is 117
kilometers from Batangas to the Pandacan Terminal in Manila, and the Black Oil Pipe
Line which 105 kilometers and runs from Batangas to Sucat.
 May 9, 2011: The Department of Energy seeks clarification and confirmation on the
coverage of the WOK and TEPO, if it applies to the WOPL and/or BOPL.
 The Court ruled that it was for the WOPL.
NOTES in NATURAL RESOURCES LAW (Agpalo; Bernas)
MA. CECILLE ALEXANDRA B. TAGUIAM
 March 29, 2011: An ocular inspection was scheduled on April 15, 2011 on the WOPL.
 April 15, 2011: The ocular inspection of the vicinity and basement as conducted in the
presence of the parties and the counsels, including the UP-NIGS and UP-ICE.
 The UP-ICE & UP-NIGS were required to submit a report on:
 Grant of FPIC’s urgent temporary lift of TEPO for not more than 48 hours in order
to conduct a pressure controlled leak tests to check the structural integrity of the
WOPL by running scraper to eliminate air gaps.
 Testing the procedures that may be used by the FPIC regarding the maintenance and
checking.
 April 25, 2011: UP-NIGS submitted their report, recommending that FPIC be allowed to do
a pressure controlled leak tests.
 May 10, 2011: UP-ICE asked for the documents from FPIC relative to the testing protocols
undertaken by FPIC and other proposals and that they be given one week within which to
file its report.