8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

1/8

G.R. No. 31688. December 17, 1990.*DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY !" RE#$%LIC OF T&E #&ILI##INES, 'e()()o!er,

+. &ON. $AN #. A-$INO, "/e o (e Cor( o F)r( I!(!ce o Abr, Seco!" ")c)2D)(r)c( !" A%RA IND$STRIAL COR#ORATION, re'o!"e!(.

FACTS:The center of controversy in the instant petition for review on certiorari is a limestone-rich 70-

hectare land in Bucay A!ra "" hectares of which are accordin# to petitioners within the Central CordilleraForest $eserve.

%rivate respondent A!ra &ndustrial Corporation 'A&C for !revity( a duly re#istered corporationesta!lished for the purpose of settin# up a cement factory claims on the other hand to !e the owner infee simple of the whole 70-hectare area indicated in survey plans %S)-*+7,+ %S)-*+7,+ and %S)-*+7,*0 with a total assessed value of %"7*/./. Thus on Septem!er * +", it 1led in the then Court ofFirst &nstance of A!ra an application for re#istration in its name of said parcels of land under the 2and$e#istration Act or in the alternative under Sec. / of Commonwealth Act 3o. +/++ as amended !y$epu!lic Act 3o. +/* inasmuch as its predecessors-in-interest had alle#edly !een in possession thereofsince 4uly *" +/.&SS)5:

6hether or not lower court erred in #rantin# the application for re#istration of the parcels of landnotwithstandin# petitioners 1ndin# that they are within the forest one.$)2&38:

95S. Forest lands or forest reserves are incapa!le of private appropriation and possession thereofhowever lon# cannot convert them into private properties. This rulin# is premised on the re#alian doctrineenshrined not only in the +, and +7 Constitutions !ut also in the +7 Constitution Article &&&.

The lower court closed its eyes to a !asic doctrine in land re#istration cases that the inclusion in atitle of a part of the pu!lic domain nulli1es the title. &ts decision to order the re#istration of an inaliena!leland in favor of A&C under the misconception that it is imperative for the ;irector of Forestry to o!orato 1led a free patent application on a parcel of land which was approved and issued anori#inal certi1cate of title. Both the free patent and title speci1cally mandate that the land shall not !ealienated nor encum!ered within , years from the date of the issuance of the patent. The ;istrict 2and?@cer actin# upon reports that >orato had encum!ered the land and upon 1ndin# that the su!C( was #ranted an 5=ploration %ermit'5%+( !y the Bureau of >ines and 8eo-Sciences 'B>8(. A lon# !attle ensued !etween Ape= and>>C withthe latter seeHin# the cancellation of the minin# claims of Ape= on the #round that suchminin# claims were

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

2/8

within a forest reservation 'A#usan-;avao-Suri#ao Forest $eserve( and thus theacDuisition on minin#ri#hts should have !een throu#h an application for a permit to prospect with theBF; and not throu#hre#istration of a ;?2 with the B>8. 6hen it reached the SC in ++ the Courtruled a#ainst Ape= holdin#that the area is a forest reserve and thus it should have applied for a permit to prospect with the BF;.?nFe!ruary +" +/>>C assi#ned all its ri#hts to 5% + to Southeast >indanao 8old>inin# Corporation 'S5>( a domestic corporation which is alle#ed to !e a +00I-owned su!sidiary of >>C. Su!seDuently B>8re#istered S5>Js >ineral %roduction Sharin# A#reement '>%SA(application and the ;eed of Assi#nment.Several oppositions were 1led. The %anel of Ar!itrators created !y the ;53$ upheld the validity of 5% +.;urin# the pendency of the case ;53$ A? 3o. *00*-+ was issued declarin# anemer#ency situation in the;iwalwal 8old $ush Area and orderin# the stoppa#e of all minin#operations therein.Ie1.6K3 5% + and its su!seDuent transfer to S5> is valid.*.6K3 the ;53$ Secretary has authority to issue ;A? "" declarin# 7* hectares of the areascovered !y theA#usan-;avao-Suri#ao Forest $eserve as non-forest lands and open to small-scale minin# purposes..6ho 'amon# petitioners Ape= and Balite( has priority ri#ht over ;iwalwal

&e2":R()o1.&3LA2&;. ?ne of the terms and conditions of 5% + is: That this permit shall !e for thee=clusive use and !ene1t of the permittee or his duly authoried a#entsand shal l !e used for mineral e=ploration purposes only and for no other purpose.G 6hile it may !e truethat S5> is a+00I su!sidiary corporation of >>C there is no showin# that the former is the dulyauthorieda#ent of the latter. As such theassi#nment is null and voidas it directly contravenes the termsand conditions of the #rant of 5% +.a.The Deed of Assignment was a total abdication of MMCs rights over the permit.&t is not amere #rant of authority to S5> as a#ent. !.

Reason for the stipulation.5=ploration permits are strictly #ranted to entities orindividuals possessin# the resources and capa!ility to undertaHe minin# operations. 6ithout such acondition non-Duali1ed entities or individuals could circumvent the strict reDuirementsunder the law !y the simplee=pediency of acDuirin# the permit from the ori#inal permittee.c.Separate personality.

The fact that S5> is a +00I su!sidiary of >>C does notautomatically maHe it an a#ent of >>C. Acorporation is an arti1cial !ein# invested !y lawwith a personality separate and distinct from personscomposin# it as well as from that of anyother le#al entity to which it may !e related. A!sent any clearproof to the contrary S5> is aseparate and distinct entity from >>C.d.Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil inapplicable.

?nly in cases where the corporate1ction was used as a shield for fraud ille#ality or ineDuity may the veil!e pierced andremoved. The doctrine of piercin# the corporate veil cannot therefore !e used as a vehicletocommit prohi!ited acts. The assi#nment of the permit in favor of S5> is utilied tocircumvent thecondition of nontransfera!ility of the e=ploration permit. To allow S5> to avail itself of this doctrine and toapprove the validity of the assi#nment is tantamount tosanctionin# an ille#al act which is what thedoctrine precisely seeHs to forestall.e.D !"# re$uires approval of Secretary of D%&R.Also %; /" '>ineral $esources;evelopment ;ecree( which is the #overnin# law when theassi#nment was e=ecutede=plicitly reDuires that the transfer or assi#nment of minin# ri#hts includin# theri#ht toe=plore a minin# area must !e with the prior approval of the Secretary of ;53$. Such isnot present in this case.f.

% '## e(pired by non)renewal.Althou#h 5% + was e=tended for +* months until 4uly "+/ >>C never renewed its permit prior andafter its e=piration.6ith the e=piration o f 5% + on 4uly " +/ >>C lost any r i#ht to the;iwalwal 8old $ushArea. S5> on the other hand has not acDuired any ri#ht to the said area !ecausethe transfer of 5% + in its favor is invalid. ence !oth >>C and S5> have not acDuired any vestedri#htover the area covered !y 5% +.*.3?. The ;53$ Secretary has no power to convert forest reserves into non-forest reserves. Such power isvested with the %resident. The ;53$ Secretary may only recommend to the %residentwhich forestreservations are to !e withdrawn from the covera#e thereof. Thus ;A? 3o. "" isnull and void for havin#!een issued in e=cess of the ;53$ SecretaryJs authority..

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

3/8

*Since its been held that neither MMC nor S%M has any right over Diwalwal+ it is thusnecessary to ma,e adeterminationof the e(isting right of the remaining claimants+ petitioners Ape( and -alite+ in the dispute.

The issue on who has priority ri#ht over ;iwalwal is deemedovertaHen !y the issuance of %roclamation *7and ;A? 3o. *00*-+ !oth !ein#constitutionally-sanctioned acts of the 5=ecutive Branch. >inin# operations in the ;iwalwal>ineral $eservation are now therefore within the fullcontrol of the State throu#h thee=ecutive !ranch.%ursuant to Sec. , of $A 7/* the State can either: '+( directly undertaHe thee=ploration developmentand utiliation of the area or '*( opt to award minin# operations in themineral reservation to privateentities includin# petitioners Ape= and Balite if it wishes. Thee=ercise of this prero#ative lies with the5=ecutive ;epartment over which courts will notinterfere.

No. L;7300. December 9, 1986.*

T&E DIRECTOR OF LANDS, 'e()()o!er, +. INTER5EDIATE A##ELLATE CO$RT !" AC5E

#LYTC. %etitioner

alle#es that the land indispute was purchased from Bar!ara 8alino on ;ecem!er +" andthat said land

was a#ain sold to respondent on April +Q

P ?n the other hand respondent answer with counterclaim that never was there an occasion when

petitioner occupied a portion of the premises. &n addition respondent alle#es that said land was a pu!lic

land 'respondent 1led a miscellaneous sales application with the Community 5nvironment and 3atural

$esources ?@ce( and the action for eTC ordered respondent to vacate the land and surrender to petitioner possession

thereof. ?n appeal the $TC reversed the decision. CA sustained the trial courtJs decision.

&SS)5KS:

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

4/8

6hether or not petitioner should !e declared the ri#htful owner of the property.

52;:

3o. $espondent is the true owner of the land.+( The action 1led !y the petitioner which was an action for

unlawful detainerG is improper. As the !are alle#ation of petitionerJs tolerance of respondentJs occupation

of the premises has not !een proven the possession should !e deemed ille#al from the !e#innin#. Thus

the CA correctly ruled that the eay +* + R a month after the last day

for1lin#Q*( The su!

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

5/8

the commerceof menG are ine=istent and void from the !e#innin#.G The Cor(must perform its duty todefend and uphold the Constitution and therefore declares the Amended 4LA null and void a! initio

Re'b2)c +. T.A.N. #ro'er()e I!c. @@@ SCRA 77RE#$%LIC OF T&E #&ILI##INES, 'e()()o!er,

+.T.A.N. #RO#ERTIES, INC., re'o!"e!(.

G.R. No. 1@9@3 !e 6, 008

Fc(&n + T.A.3. %roperties 1led in the $TC of Batan#as an application for the re#istration of a land

located at Sto. Tomas Batan#as and with an area of ,"./007 hectares. To support its application itsu!mitted two certi1cates issued !y C53$? and F>S-;53$ and !oth certifyin# that the land applied forwas aliena!le and disposa!le.

The $epu!lic of the %hilippines represented !y the ;irector of 2ands opposed the application onthe #round that T.A.3. %roperties did not prove that the land was aliena!le and disposa!le.

Ie:6hether or not the applicant proved that the land is aliena!le and disposa!le.

R2)!/3o.&t is the !urden of the applicant to prove that the land su!

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

6/8

,-* s. +, otherwise Hnown as the &mplementin# $ules and $e#ulations of $.A. 3o. 7/*. This was

later repealed !y ;A? 3o. "-/0 s. +" which was adopted on ;ecem!er *0 +".

?n!r+0 +7 counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the ;53$ Secretary demandin# that the

;53$ (o'the implementation of $.A. 3o. 7/* and ;A? 3o. "-/0 #ivin# the ;53$ 1fteen days from

receipt to act thereon. The ;53$ however has yet to respond or act on petitionersO letter.

%etitioners claim that the ;53$ Secretary acted without or in e=cess of inin# Act of +, or $epu!lic Act 3o. 7/* as unconstitutional and null and

voidQ

'c( ;eclarin# the &mplementin# $ules and $e#ulations of the %hilippine >inin# Act contained in ;53$

Administrative ?rder 3o. "-/0 and all other similar administrative issuances as unconstitutional and null

and voidQ and

'd( Cancellin# the Financial and Technical Assistance A#reement issued to 6estern >inin# %hilippines &nc.

as unconstitutional ille#al and null and void.

&ssue :

6hether or not $epu!lic Act 3o. 7/* is unconstitutional.

$ulin# :

The Court 1nds the followin# provisions of $.A. 3o. 7/* to !e violative of Section * Article && of the

Constitution and here!y declares unconstitutional and void:

'+( The proviso in Section 'aD( which de1nes UDuali1ed personU to wit:%rovided That a le#ally or#anied forei#n-owned corporation shall !e deemed a Duali1ed person for

purposes of #rantin# an e=ploration 'erm)( 1nancial or technical assistance a#reement or mineral

processin# permit.

'*( Section * which speci1es the ri#hts and o!li#ations of an e=ploration permittee insofar as said

section applies to a 1nancial or technical assistance a#reement

'( Section which prescri!es the eli#i!ility of a contractor in a 1nancial or technical assistancea#reementQ

'/( Section , which enumerates the terms and conditions for every 1nancial or technical assistance

a#reementQ

',( Section which allows the contractor in a 1nancial and technical assistance a#reement to convert

the same into a mineral production-sharin# a#reementQ

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

7/8

'"( Section ," which authories the issuance of a mineral processin# permit to a contractor in a 1nancial

and technical assistance a#reementQ

The followin# provisions of the same Act are liHewise void as they are dependent on the fore#oin#

provisions and cannot stand on their own:

'+( Section '#( which de1nes the term UcontractorU insofar as it applies to a 1nancial or technical

assistance a#reement.

Section / which prescri!es the ma=imum contract area in a 1nancial or technical assistance a#reementsQ

Section " which allows ne#otiations for 1nancial or technical assistance a#reementsQ

Section 7 which prescri!es the procedure for 1lin# and evaluation of 1nancial or technical assistance

a#reement proposalsQ

Section which limits the term of 1nancial or technical assistance a#reementsQ

Section /0 which allows the assi#nment or transfer of 1nancial or technical assistance a#reementsQ

Section /+ which allows the withdrawal of the contractor in an FTAAQ

The eco!" !" ()r"para#raphs of Section + which provide for the 8overnmentOs share in a 1nancial

and technical assistance a#reementQ and

Section 0 which provides for incentives to contractors in FTAAs insofar as it applies to said contractorsQ

6hen the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and connected as conditions considerations

inducements or compensations for each other as to warrant a !elief that the le#islature intended them as

a whole and that if all could not !e carried into eNect the le#islature would not pass the residue

independently then if some parts are unconstitutional all the provisions which are thus dependentconditional or connected must fall with them.

65$5F?$5 the petition is 8$A3T5;

CR$> DENR&%$A 2aw vis a vis $e#alian ;octrine

Cru a noted constitutionalist assailed the validity of the $A 7+ or the &ndi#enous %eopleJs $i#hts Act on

the #round that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the StateJs ownership over lands of the

pu!lic domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein in violation of the re#alian doctrine

em!odied in Section * Article && of the Constitution. The &%$A law !asically enumerates the ri#hts of the

indi#enous peoples over ancestral domains which may include natural resources. Cru et al content that

!y providin# for an all-encompassin# de1nition of ancestral domainsG and ancestral landsG which mi#ht

even include private lands found within said areas Sections 'a( and '!( of said law violate the ri#hts of

private landowners.

&SS)5: 6hether or not the &%$A law is unconstitutional.

8/11/2019 cases art12 sec 3-6

8/8

52;: The SC deli!erated upon the matter. After deli!eration they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They

deli!erated a#ain and the same result transpired. Since there was no ma525C shall procure radio and television time which shall !e

allocated eDually and impartially amon# the candidates. This is free of char#e.

- %etitioners contend that this provision violates the due process clause and the eminent domainprovision of the Constitution !ecause air time is taHen without payment of A 3etworH lostmillions providin# free air time due to this provision.

ISS$E

- 6hether or not Section * of B.%. 3o. + constitutes taHin# of property without due process of law

and without