NIPAS

Agnes vs. Republic, G.R. No. 156022, July 6, 2015

Facts:

The petitioners in this case claim to be among the more than 250 families
("settlers") who lived in Calauit Island in the Province of Palawan. They lay claim on
the lands of Calauit either (1) through a predecessor, who had become a titled owner
by virtue of Act No. 926 or (2) by means of an imperfect title, which they, by themselves
or their ancestors, had acquired by way of "unbroken, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and cultivation" of the lands therein until their relocation in 1977.

In 1973, the Bureau of Lands started to survey Calauit. The settlers were told
that it was being done for purposes of titling the latter’s landholdings. In 1975, however,
the settlers were told that the supposed titling of their landholdings was not going to
push through as the island was going to be set up as a zoo for rare and exotic animals
from other countries. Further, they were told that instead, they would be resettled in
Halsey and Burabod in Culion, where the lands were claimed to be more fertile and
where full government services and facilities such as irrigation, electricity, waterworks,
public markets, roads, housing, school, and health care, would be provided by the
government.

However, according to petitioners, life in the resettlement areas was

unbearable. They claimed that the lands in Halsey and Burabod were unsuitable for
habitation and agriculture; and that the government failed to comply with the promised
services and facilities.

In June 1987, the petitioners, with the other settlers, returned to Calauit. The
respondent claimed that by returning to Calauit, the petitioners breached their
contracts, the Resettlement Agreements, which they voluntarily and freely executed.
The RTC of Puerto Princesa City rendered a Decision against the petitioners’
return to Calauit on the ground that national interest in the preservation of Calauit as
Game Preserve and Sanctuary prevails over the right of the petitioners to return to
Calauit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed ruling of the RTC.
Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners may be compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of

their obligations enumerated in the resettlement agreements.
Ruling:
No.

Under the CADT, the Tagbanua ICC is given authority “TO HAVE AND HOLD
IN OWNERSHIP, the x x x described ancestral domain as their private but community
property, which belongs to all generations of the said Indigenous Cultural
Community/Indigenous Peoples”; and “TO DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE and
UTILIZE COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all the rights, privileges
and responsibilities appurtenant thereto, subject to the condition that the said ancestral
domain shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor DESTROYED.”

Here, the issuance by the Office of the President of the CADT in favor of the
settlers, including the petitioners, provide their occupation and/or settlement on the
subject land an apparent color of authority at the very least by virtue of Republic Act
No. 8371. Therefore, the settlers continued stay in Calauit has become a non-issue.

NIPAS

PICOP Resources, Inc. vs. Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation, G.R. No.
163509, Dec. 6, 2006
Facts:

On 1987 Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation (CMMCI) ay

engaged in a Mines Operating Agreement and Development Corporation together with
Banahaw Mining and Development Corporation (BMDC) where the latter agreed to act
as Mine Operator for the exploration, development, and eventual commercial
operation of CMMCI's 18 mining claims located in Agusan del Sur. Pursuant to the
terms ng agreement, BMDC filed applications for Mining Lease Contracts over the
mining claims with the Bureau of Mines.

On April 29, 1988 BMDC was issued a Mines Temporary Permit authorizing it
to extract and dispose of precious minerals found within its mining claims. Since may
portion of Banahaw Mining's mining claims ay located in petitioner PICOP's logging
concession sa Agusan del sur, they signed a MOA kung in which they were authorized
by the PICOP to access to its mining claims.

On 1991 BMDC converted the mining claims to applications for Mineral

Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA).

On December 18, 1996 while the MPSA is pending, BMDC decided to

sell/assign its rights and interests over 37 mining claims in favor of private respondent
Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation. Together with the transfer are the mining
operating agreement with CMMCI. Upon being informed of the development, CMMCI,
as claim owner, immediately approved the assignment made by Banahaw Mining in
favor of private respondent Base Metals, thereby recognizing private respondent Base
Metals as the new operator of its claims.

On March 10, 1997 Base Metals amended Banahaw Mining's pending MPSA
applications with the Bureau of Mines to substitute itself as an applicant, and to submit
additional document that will support their application. Area clearances from the DENR
Regional Director and Superintendent of the Agusan Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary
were submitted, as required.
 On November 18, 1997 PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau
(MGB), an Opposition to private respondent Base Metals' application, alleging that it
violated the non-impairment clause and will be prejudicial to PICOP. The Panel
Arbitrator initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, on appeal, the Mines Adjudication
Board, ruled in favor of respondent.

It was subsequently affirmed by the CA, it ruled that the Presidential Warranty
of September 25, 1968 signed by President Marcos merely confirmed the timber
license granted to PICOP and warranted the latter's peaceful and adequate
possession and enjoyment of its concession areas. It was issued upon the request ng
Board of Investments to establish the boundaries of PICOP's timber license
agreement. The Presidential Warranty did not convert PICOP's timber license into a
contract because it did not create any obligation on the part of the government in favor
of PICOP. Thus, the non-impairment clause finds no application.

Issue:

Whether or not the concession area of petitioner is closed to mining activities and that
the conversion of the agreement into MPSA will run counter to the non-impairment
clause of the Constitution.

Ruling:
No. A timber license agreement is not a contract, it is a mere privilege.

We should state at this juncture that the policy of multiple land use is enshrined
in our laws towards the end that the country's natural resources may be rationally
explored, developed, utilized and conserved.

In like manner, RA 7942, recognizing the equiponderance between mining and

timber rights, gives a mining contractor the right to enter a timber concession and cut
timber therein provided that the surface owner or concessionaire shall be properly
compensated for any damage done to the property as a consequence of mining
operations.

Firstly, assuming that the area covered by Base Metals' MPSA is a government
reservation, defined as proclaimed reserved lands for specific purposes other than
mineral reservations, such does not necessarily preclude mining activities in the area.
Sec. 15(b) of DAO 96-40 provides that government reservations may be opened for
mining applications upon prior written clearance by the government agency having
jurisdiction over such reservation. Sec. 6 of RA 7942 also provides that mining
operations in reserved lands other than mineral reservations may be undertaken by
the DENR, subject to certain limitations.
 Secondly, RA 7942 does not disallow mining applications in all forest reserves
but only those proclaimed as watershed forest reserves. There is no evidence in this
case that the area covered by Base Metals' MPSA has been proclaimed as watershed
forest reserves. DENR Memorandum Order No. 03-98, which provides the guidelines
in the issuance of area status and clearance or consent for mining applications
pursuant to RA 7942, provides that timber or forest lands, military and other
government reservations, forest reservations, forest reserves other than critical
watershed forest reserves, and existing DENR Project Areas within timber or forest
lands, reservations and reserves, among others, are open to mining applications
subject to area status and clearance.

Lastly, PICOP failed to present any evidence that the area covered by the
MPSA is a protected wilderness area designated as an initial component of the NIPAS
pursuant to a law, presidential decree, presidential proclamation or executive order as
required by RA 7586.

PHIL. CLEAN AIR ACT

Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-
24670, Dec. 14, 1979
Facts:

On March 4, 1952, Ortigas sold Lot 5 and 6, Block 31 of the Highway Hills Subdivision
at Mandaluyong to Augusto Padilla y Angeles and Natividad Angeles. The latter
transferred their rights in favour of Emma Chavez, upon completion of payment a deed
was executed with stipulations, one of which is that the use of the lots are to be
exclusive for residential purposes only. This was annotated in the Transfer Certificate
of Titles No. 101509 and 101511. Feati then acquired Lot 5 directly from Emma
Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills. On May 5, 1963, Feati started construction
of a building on both lots to be devoted for banking purposes but could also be for
residential use. Ortigas sent a written demand to stop construction but Feati continued
contending that the building was being constructed according to the zoning regulations
as stated in Municipal Resolution 27 declaring the area along the West part of EDSA
to be a commercial and industrial zone. Civil case No. 7706 was made and decided in
favour of Feati.
Issue:

Whether or not Resolution No. 27, series of 1960 of the Municipal Council of
Mandaluyong, Rizal declaring Lots Nos. 5 and 6, among others, as part of the
commercial and industrial zone, prevails over the deed restricyions imposed ny the
plaintiff-appellant in the dead of sale that the lots in questios shall be used buy the
buyer exclusively for residential purposes.
Ruling:
Resolution No. 27 prevails over the contract stipulations. Section 3 of RA 2264 of the
Local Autonomy Act empowers a Municipal Council to adopt zoning and subdivision
ordinances or regulations for the Municipality. Section 12 or RA 2264 states that
implied power of the municipality should be “liberally construed in it’s favour”, “to give
more power to the local government in promoting economic conditions, social welfare,
and material progress in the community”. This is found in the General Welfare Clause
of the said act. Although non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, it
is not absolute since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power,
e.g. the power to promote health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and
general welfare of the people. Resolution No. 27 was obviously passed in exercise of
police power to safeguard health, safety, peace and order and the general welfare of
the people in the locality as it would not be a conducive residential area considering
the amount of traffic, pollution, and noise which results in the surrounding industrial
and commercial establishments.