PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No.

1770

RECONSTITUTING THE NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY TO THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY,

BROADENING ITS FUNCTIONS AND POWERS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, it is imperative to strengthen National strategy for the integrated growth and development of the food
industry to insure adequate and continuous supply at reasonable prices;

WHEREAS, the functions and powers of the National Grains Authority, created under P.D. No. 4 as amended by
P.D. No. 699 and 1485, are limited to the grains industry;

WHEREAS, integrated growth and development of the entire food industry requires the expansion of the functions
and powers of the National Grains Authority to cover other basic food commodities; lawphil.net

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the constitution, do
hereby Order and Decree:

Section 1. Short Title. This Decree shall be known as the National Food Authority Act.

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It shall be the declared policy of the State to promote the integrated growth and
development of the food industry so it can adequately function as an institution conscious of its social
responsibilities, capable of maintaining an adequate and continuous food supply and contributing its proper share to
the economy.

Section 3. National Food Authority. The National Grains Authority is hereby transformed into the National Food
Authority which shall be a government corporation attached to the Office of the President.

Section 4. Scope. As used in this Decree, the term "Food Industry" shall include, in addition to those enumerated in
Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 4, as amended, raw/fresh and/or manufactured/processed/packaged food
products.

Section 5. Applicability of Presidential Decree No. 4 as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 699 and 1485.
Except as otherwise herein provided, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 4, as amended by Presidential
Decree Nos. 699 and 1485, shall govern the National Food Authority and shall be applicable to other food
commodities mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph as the National Food Authority Council may
determine from time to time.

Section 6. Composition of the National Food Authority Council. The Council shall be composed of the following:

The Minister of Human Settlements

The Administrator, National Food Authority

The Minister of Agriculture

The Minister of Finance

The Minister of Industry

The Minister of Trade

The Governor, Central Bank of the Philippines

The Chairman, Development Bank of the Philippines

The President, Philippine National Bank

The President, Land Bank of the Philippines

A Representative of the Office of the President

The Chairman shall be the Minister of Human Settlements and the Vice-Chairman shall be the Administrator of the
National Food Authority. The Administrator of the National Food Authority shall be appointed by the President of the
Republic of the Philippines.

The Council shall meet regularly at least once a month on any date to be determined by the Chairman. Provided:
That the Chairman may convene special meetings to discuss urgent matters. The Council Members shall be entitled
to per diem of not less than EIGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P800.00) for each meeting actually attended by them and
such other remuneration as may be determined by the Council.

The Management of the Authority shall be vested in an Administrator who shall have the rank of a Minister and shall
be assisted by two (2) Deputy Administrators and as many Assistant Administrators as may be determined by the
Council and whose respective qualifications shall be the same as those provided for in the said Decree.

The Administrator shall receive a compensation, to be determined by the Council in accordance with the provisions
of pertinent compensation law.

Section 7. Additional Powers, Functions and Exemptions. In addition to the powers, functions and exemptions of
the Authority under P.D. No. 4, as amended, the Authority shall have the following powers, functions and
exemptions:

(a) To acquire ownership of, by purchase or otherwise, and/or to invest in, hold, sell or otherwise dispose of,
stocks or bonds or any interest in either, or any obligation or evidence or indebtedness of any corporation,
public or private, domestic or foreign, or the bonds or other obligations or evidence of indebtedness of any
person, firm or corporation.

(b) To register, license and supervise persons, natural or juridical, who shall engage or are engaging in the
wholesale, retail, processing, manufacturing, storage, transporting, packaging, importation, exportation of
food products/commodities and such other related to food activities and to prescribe, impose and collect
fees, charges and/or surcharges, with the approval of the President of the Philippines upon recommendation
of the Council.

(c) To import/export or cause the importation/exportation of food products/commodities and/or raw materials,
equipment and facilities needed in the manufacture/processing of food commodities as may be determined
by the Council, and as approved by the President of the Philippines.

(d) To establish or cause the establishment of branches or agencies, domestic or foreign, whenever deemed
necessary by the Council.

(e) To engage in the production, manufacturing, processing and/or packaging of food products/commodities
as may be necessary to effectively carry out its functions and as approved by the President of the
Philippines.

(f) To establish and or re-structure its own internal organization and to fix the remunerations, emoluments,
allowances and other fringe benefits of its officers and employees, subject to the provisions of pertinent
compensation law and regulations.

(g) To create and establish, a "Provident Fund" which shall consist of contributions made both by the
Authority and its officers and employees to a common fund for the payment of retirement and other benefits
to such officers and employees or their heirs under such terms and conditions as the Council may fix.

(h) The subsidiaries of the Authority and those which may be subsequently acquired and/or hereinafter
created by law and/or owned/controlled and/or organized by the Authority shall enjoy the tax exemptions
and other privileges and rights of the Authority when specifically approved by the President of the
Philippines.

Section 8. Food Terminal, Inc. The investments and loans, as well as related obligations incurred, of the Human
Settlements Development Corporation in the Food Terminal, Inc. shall be transferred to the Authority, at such
valuation as may be approved by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Commission on
Audit.

The terms of payment for net assets transferred shall be as mutually agreed upon.

Section 9. Capitalization. The Authority shall have an authorized capital stock of five billion pesos, divided into fifty
million shares of par value of one hundred pesos each. These shares shall be wholly subscribed and paid by the
national government, local government units, or other government owned or controlled corporations.

The accumulated capital stock and surpluses of the National Grains Authority shall be evaluated and shall be the
initial paid in capital of the Authority. The national government shall make additional equity investments into the
Authority out of funds appropriated in the General Appropriations Act and other appropriations laws as may be
approved by the President in accordance with the fund requirements of the Authority and funds availability in the
Treasury.

Section 10. Funding.
 (a) Official development assistance to the Philippine government are channeled through the Authority,
including food aid, shall be recorded on the books of the Authority as paid in capital when received in the
form of loans, except where otherwise approved by the President of the Philippines, in which case they may
be recorded as subsidies to the Authority.

(b) Payments made by the national government on loans drawn by or for the Authority and the National
Grains Authority shall be recorded as payments of equity, except where otherwise approved by the
President in which case may be recorded as subsidies to the Authority.

(c) The national government may subsidize the operations of the Authority out of funds appropriated in the
annual appropriations Acts, in such amount and at such times as approved by the President of the
Philippines.

(d) The funding and organizational provisions in B.P. No. 80 intended for the national food programs,
including those provided as special financing program seed fund, cooperatives loans, livelihood projects, in
the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Office of the President, the Ministry of
Human Settlements shall be reviewed by the Council, which shall recommend to the President the
appropriations transfers and realignment of responsibilities in order to be consistent with the purposes of this
Decree. Appropriations transferred shall form part of the equity investment into the Authority. These review
shall be conducted with the participation of the Chairman, Presidential Commission on Reorganization and
the Minister of the Budget.

(e) The Authority is hereby empowered to negotiate with the government and domestic private lending
institutions for credit facilities at preferential rates.

(f) The Central Bank of the Philippines shall rediscount local procurement and importation of papers of the
National Food Authority under such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Monetary Board,
which shall give preferential treatment as to interest rate, maturity and loan value.

Section 11. National Government Guarantee. The obligations of the Authority shall be guaranteed by the
government of the Philippines upon approval of the President of the Philippines.

Section 12. Rules and Regulations. The Authority shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to effectively implement and carry out the provisions of this Decree, such rules and regulations shall take effect
fifteen (15) days following their publication once in at least one daily newspaper of general circulation.

Section 13. Repealing Clause. All laws, orders and proclamations, rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

Section 14. Separability Clause. If any part, section or provision of this Decree be held invalid or unconstitutional,
no other part, section or provision thereof shall be affected thereby.

Section 15. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 14th day of January in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
eighty-one.

The Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine, also known as “jura regalia”, is a fiction of Spanish colonial law that has been said to apply to all
Spanish colonial holdings. More specifically, the Regalian Doctrine refers to the feudal principle that private title to land
must emanate, directly or indirectly, from the Spanish crown with the latter retaining the underlying title. Lands and
resources not granted by the Crown remain part of the public domain over which none but the sovereign holds rights.
Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish
Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. In a broad sense,
the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.

Based on the Laws of the Indies, the capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power of dominium,
as cited in the Cruz v. DENR case. This was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of
jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regaliais a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards
into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law
14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect
to the Philippine Islands in the following manner: "We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands,
territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still
pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of
grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys,
audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which
are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase,
and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now
have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose
of as we may wish.”

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands by issuing
royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian. Private land titles could only be acquired from the
government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown (Cruz v. DENR).

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. The doctrine has been
consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. 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 government,
as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored
recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of
obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership.

The Regalian Doctrine and the Philippine Constitution

The Regalian Doctrine is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the country’s earlier Constitutions. In the
1987 Constitution, Section 2 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) provides the following:

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 abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be
alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the
exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to
enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization.

The said provision in the 1987 Philippine Constitution had its roots in the 1935 Philippine Constitution. Section 1 of
Article XIII (Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources) of the 1935 Philippine Constitution provides the
following:

Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right,
grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or
lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.

Then in the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the classifications of land and the Regalian Doctrine are provided under Section
8, Article XIV (The National Economy and The Patrimony of The Nation), which states the following:

Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not
be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall
be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit
of the grant.

As shown in the above provisions, the 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or
timber. Meanwhile, the 1973 Constitution provided the following classifications: agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law,
giving the government great leeway for classification. However, the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution
classification with one addition—national parks. Of these classifications, only agricultural lands may be alienated. Prior
to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively classified
under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain.

I. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IN THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM.

A. The Laws of the Indies

The capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power of dominium.[3] This was the foundation for
the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regalia is a
Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the
Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de
Leyes de las Indias, set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippine Islands in the following manner:

"We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded
away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will
that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that
after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public
squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their
present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be
necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the
rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.

We therefore order and command that all viceroys and presidents of pretorial courts designate at such time as shall to
them seem most expedient, a suitable period within which all possessors of tracts, farms, plantations, and estates shall
exhibit to them and to the court officers appointed by them for this purpose, their title deeds thereto. And those who
are in possession by virtue of proper deeds and receipts, or by virtue of just prescriptive right shall be protected, and all
the rest shall be restored to us to be disposed of at our will."[4]

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands by issuing
royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian.[5] Private land titles could only be acquired from
the government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown.[6]

The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley Hipotecaria, or the Mortgage Law of 1893.[7] The Spanish Mortgage
Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims. The law sought to register
and tax lands pursuant to the Royal Decree of 1880. The Royal Decree of 1894, or the "Maura Law," was partly an
amendment of the Mortgage Law as well as the Laws of the Indies, as already amended by previous orders and decrees.
[8] This was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines. It required the "adjustment" or registration of all
agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the state.
Four years later, by the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, Spain ceded to the government of the United States all
rights, interests and claims over the national territory of the Philippine Islands. In 1903, the United States colonial
government, through the Philippine Commission, passed Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act.

B. Valenton v. Murciano

In 1904, under the American regime, this Court decided the case of Valenton v. Murciano.[9]

Valenton resolved the question of which is the better basis for ownership of land: long-time occupation or paper title.
Plaintiffs had entered into peaceful occupation of the subject land in 1860. Defendant's predecessor-in-interest, on the
other hand, purchased the land from the provincial treasurer of Tarlac in 1892. The lower court ruled against the
plaintiffs on the ground that they had lost all rights to the land by not objecting to the administrative sale. Plaintiffs
appealed the judgment, asserting that their 30-year adverse possession, as an extraordinary period of prescription in the
Partidas and the Civil Code, had given them title to the land as against everyone, including the State; and that the State,
not owning the land, could not validly transmit it.

The Court, speaking through Justice Willard, decided the case on the basis of "those special laws which from earliest
time have regulated the disposition of the public lands in the colonies."[10] The question posed by the Court was: "Did
these special laws recognize any right of prescription as against the State as to these lands; and if so, to what extent was
it recognized?"

Prior to 1880, the Court said, there were no laws specifically providing for the disposition of land in the Philippines.
However, it was understood that in the absence of any special law to govern a specific colony, the Laws of the Indies
would be followed. Indeed, in the Royal Order of July 5, 1862, it was decreed that until regulations on the subject could
be prepared, the authorities of the Philippine Islands should follow strictly the Laws of the Indies, the Ordenanza of the
Intendentes of 1786, and the Royal Cedula of 1754.[11]

Quoting the preamble of Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, the court interpreted it as
follows:

"In the preamble of this law there is, as is seen, a distinct statement that all those lands belong to the Crown which have
not been granted by Philip, or in his name, or by the kings who preceded him. This statement excludes the idea that
there might be lands not so granted, that did not belong to the king. It excludes the idea that the king was not still the
owner of all ungranted lands, because some private person had been in the adverse occupation of them. By the
mandatory part of the law all the occupants of the public lands are required to produce before the authorities named,
and within a time to be fixed by them, their title papers. And those who had good title or showed prescription were to
be protected in their holdings. It is apparent that it was not the intention of the law that mere possession for a length of
time should make the possessors the owners of the land possessed by them without any action on the part of the
authorities."[12]

The preamble stated that all those lands which had not been granted by Philip, or in his name, or by the kings who
preceded him, belonged to the Crown.[13] For those lands granted by the king, the decree provided for a system of
assignment of such lands. It also ordered that all possessors of agricultural land should exhibit their title deed,
otherwise, the land would be restored to the Crown.[14]

The Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754 reinforced the Recopilacion when it ordered the Crown's principal subdelegate to
issue a general order directing the publication of the Crown's instructions:

"x x x to the end that any and all persons who, since the year 1700, and up to the date of the promulgation and
publication of said order, shall have occupied royal lands, whether or not x x x cultivated or tenanted, may x x x appear
and exhibit to said subdelegates the titles and patents by virtue of which said lands are occupied. x x x. Said
subdelegates will at the same time warn the parties interested that in case of their failure to present their title deeds
within the term designated, without a just and valid reason therefor, they will be deprived of and evicted from their
lands, and they will be granted to others."[15]

On June 25, 1880, the Crown adopted regulations for the adjustment of lands "wrongfully occupied" by private
individuals in the Philippine Islands. Valenton construed these regulations together with contemporaneous legislative
and executive interpretations of the law, and concluded that plaintiffs' case fared no better under the 1880 decree and
other laws which followed it, than it did under the earlier ones. Thus as a general doctrine, the Court stated:

"While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient
length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and
obtain from them his deed, and until he did that the State remained the absolute owner."[16]
In conclusion, the Court ruled: "We hold that from 1860 to 1892 there was no law in force in these Islands by which the
plaintiffs could obtain the ownership of these lands by prescription, without any action by the State."[17] Valenton had
no rights other than those which accrued to mere possession. Murciano, on the other hand, was deemed to be the
owner of the land by virtue of the grant by the provincial secretary. In effect, Valenton upheld the Spanish concept of
state ownership of public land.

As a fitting observation, the Court added that "[t]he policy pursued by the Spanish Government from earliest times,
requiring settlers on the public lands to obtain title deeds therefor from the State, has been continued by the American
Government in Act No. 926."[18]

C. The Public Land Acts and the Torrens System

Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the provisions of the the Philippine Bill of 1902. The
law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain. It prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading,
selling, and leasing of portions of the public domain of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to
enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the Islands. It also provided for the "issuance of patents to certain
native settlers upon public lands," for the establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion of
imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands." In short, the
Public Land Act operated on the assumption that title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the
government;[19] and that the government's title to public land sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent
treaties between Spain and the United States.[20] The term "public land" referred to all lands of the public domain
whose title still remained in the government and are thrown open to private appropriation and settlement,[21] and
excluded the patrimonial property of the government and the friar lands.[22]

Act No. 926 was superseded in 1919 by Act 2874, the second Public Land Act. This new law was passed under the Jones
Law. It was more comprehensive in scope but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans
and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges.[23] After the passage of the 1935 Constitution,
Act 2874 was amended in 1936 by Commonwealth Act No. 141. Commonwealth Act No. 141 remains the present Public
Land Law and it is essentially the same as Act 2874. The main difference between the two relates to the transitory
provisions on the rights of American citizens and corporations during the Commonwealth period at par with Filipino
citizens and corporations.[24]

Grants of public land were brought under the operation of the Torrens system under Act 496, or the Land Registration
Law of 1903. Enacted by the Philippine Commission, Act 496 placed all public and private lands in the Philippines under
the Torrens system. The law is said to be almost a verbatim copy of the Massachussetts Land Registration Act of 1898,
[25] which, in turn, followed the principles and procedure of the Torrens system of registration formulated by Sir Robert
Torrens who patterned it after the Merchant Shipping Acts in South Australia. The Torrens system requires that the
government issue an official certificate of title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property
described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves.[26] The
certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of said
certificate. This system highly facilitates land conveyance and negotiation.[27]

D. The Philippine Constitutions

The Regalian doctrine was enshrined in the 1935 Constitution. One of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935
Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the country.[28] There
was an overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favor of the principle of state ownership of natural resources and
the adoption of the Regalian doctrine.[29] State ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary starting point to
secure recognition of the state's power to control their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization.[30] The
delegates to the Constitutional Convention very well knew that the concept of State ownership of land and natural
resources was introduced by the Spaniards, however, they were not certain whether it was continued and applied by
the Americans. To remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision in the Constitution affirming the Regalian
doctrine.[31]

Thus, the 1935 Constitution, in Section 1 of Article XIII on "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources," reads as
follows:

"Sec. 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right,
grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or
lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant."

The 1973 Constitution reiterated the Regalian doctrine in Section 8, Article XIV on the "National Economy and the
Patrimony of the Nation," to wit:

"Sec. 8. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall
not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any
of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-
five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development
of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant."

The 1987 Constitution reaffirmed the Regalian doctrine in Section 2 of Article XII on "National Economy and Patrimony,"
to wit:

"Sec. 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.

Simply stated, all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources enumerated therein, whether on public or
private land, belong to the State. It is this concept of State ownership that petitioners claim is being violated by the IPRA.

Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of
land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence (termed "indefeasibility") of title of the person recorded on
the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register. The interests that are not
guaranteed are called “paramount interests”. Ownership of land is transferred by registration of a transfer of title,
instead of by the use of deeds. The Registrar would provide a Certificate of Title to the new proprietor, which is
merely a copy of the related folio of the register.
The main benefit of the system is to enhance certainty of title to land and to simplify dealings involving land. The
system has been adopted by many countries, especially those in the Commonwealth of Nations, and has been
extended to cover other interests, including credit interests (such as mortgages), leaseholds and strata titles. The
design and introduction in 1858 of the Torrens system in South Australia is generally attributed to Sir Robert Richard
Torrens (1814 – 31 August 1884), who was Premier of the then colony, though some attribute the design to another.
[1]

Common law[edit]
At common law, the vendor of land needs to show his or her ownership of the land by tracing the chain of ownership
back to the earliest grant of land by the Crown to its first owner. The documents relating to transactions with the land
are collectively known as the "title deeds" or the "chain of title". This event may have occurred hundreds of years
prior and could have had dozens of intervened changes in the land's ownership. A person's ownership over land
could also be challenged, potentially causing great legal expense to land owners and hindering development.
Even an exhaustive title search of the chain of title would not give the purchaser complete security, largely because
of the principle, nemo dat quod non habet ("no one gives what he does not have") and the ever-present possibility of
undetected outstanding interests. For example, in the UK Court of Chancery case Pilcher v Rawlins (1872),[5][6] the
vendor conveyed the fee-simple estate to P1, but retained the title deeds and fraudulently purported to convey the
fee-simple estate to P2. The latter could receive only the title retained by the vendor—in short, nothing. However,
the case was ultimately decided in favor of P2, over P1. The courts of equity could not bring themselves to decide
against a totally innocent (without notice) purchaser. [7]
The common-law position has been changed in minor respects by legislation designed to minimize the searches
that should be undertaken by a prospective purchaser. In some jurisdictions, a limitation has been placed on the
period of commencement of title a purchaser may require.

Deeds registration[edit]
The effect of registration under the deeds registration system was to give the instrument registered "priority" over all
instruments that are either unregistered or not registered until later. The basic difference between the deeds
registration and Torrens systems is that the former involves registration of instruments while the latter involves
registration of title.
Moreover, though a register of who owned what land was maintained, it was unreliable and could be challenged in
the courts at any time. The limits of the deeds-registration system meant that transfers of land were slow, expensive,
and often unable to create certain title.

Situationer:

The country’s total land area of 30 million hectares is legally classified as alienable and disposable land and forestland.

As of 2008, classified forestland covers some 15.05 million hectares or 50%; unclassified forestland, 0.755 million
hectares or 3%; and alienable and disposable land (A & D) spans 14.19 million hectares or 47%.

Of the country’s 14.19 million hectares of A & D lands, 9.63 million hectares are already titled.

The survey, management, and disposition of A & D lands, including government lands not placed under the jurisdiction
of any specific government agency, is a mandate of the Land Management Bureau, one of six bureaus of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources.

Among the major activities of the LMB include the conduct of cadastral survey of all municipalities and cities in the
country, management of foreshore areas, and processing and issuance of land titles, as well as investigation and
resolution of land cases involving rights conflicts of public land applicants.

Doctrine of vested rights as applied in constitutional law protects a person, who won a legal
decision, from a legislature seeking to overturn the decision. This was first announced in
McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898) wherein the court held “It is not within the
power of a legislature to take away rights which have been once vested by a judgment.
Legislation may act on subsequent proceedings, may abate actions pending, but when those
actions have passed into judgment the power of the legislature to disturb the rights created
thereby ceases.”

The doctrine of vested rights also protects property owners and developers from changes in
zoning when they have received a valid building permit and have completed substantial
construction and made substantial expenditures in reliance on the permit. This doctrine allows
the owner or developer to proceed in accordance with the prior zoning provision as they have
vested rights to a validly issued permit.

What is eminent domain?

“Eminent Domain” – also called “condemnation” – is the power of local, state or federal government agencies to take
private property for “public use” so long as the government pays “just compensation.” The government can exercise its
power of eminent domain even if the owner does not wish to sell his or her property.

What is a 'public use' for which the government might be able to take my property?

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution allow
private property to be taken by eminent domain only for a “public use.”

Traditional examples of “public uses” for which the government might exercise its power of eminent domain include
such things as schools, roads, libraries, police stations, fire stations and similar public uses.

It should be noted, however, that the term “public use” has been interpreted very broadly by the Courts. The project
need not be actually open to the public to constitute a public use. Instead, generally only a public benefit is required.
Some cases, for example, have even allowed the use of eminent domain for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues.
What constitutes a “public use” is an ever evolving issue and in questionable cases, experienced eminent domain
counsel should be consulted to review whether the government’s proposed taking is truly a “public use.”

Can I challenge the government's right to take my property?

Even though most government agencies have the power of eminent domain, on occasion, a successful challenge to the
government’s right to take a particular property for a particular project can be made. Such challenges, however, are the
exception, not the rule, and usually result only in a delay, rather than outright prevention of the government’s right to
take.

Typical challenges to the right to take include failure of the government to follow the proper procedural steps towards
eminent domain (see “The Eminent Domain Process” chapter of this Handbook). It must be remembered that the
circumstances allowing a successful challenge to the right to take are rare. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts
and experienced eminent domain counsel should be consulted. Seeking compensation for the taking, rather than
challenging the government’s right to take, will be the property or business owner’s usual remedy.

If I am successful in challenging the government's right to take my property, can I keep my property and recover my
costs?

Where a property owner successfully challenges the government’s right to take his or her property by eminent domain,
California law provides that the eminent domain proceeding may be dismissed. The property owner may be entitled to
recover his or her litigation expenses including attorneys’ and appraisers’ fees incurred in the action.

However, even where a successful challenge to the right to take is made, the court has the authority under some
circumstances to allow the government to correct any procedural mistakes and proceed with the taking. Moreover, even
if the action is dismissed outright, the government agency may start the process all over again; prevailing on the right to
take challenge does not preclude the government from acquiring the property for all time.

If I am unsuccessful in challenging the government's right to take my property, will I have to pay for the government's
costs?

No. Where a property owner raises a right to take challenge, but is not successful, the property owner will not be liable
for the government’s costs.