2018-105286

1. No. As stated in the case of Oposa vs. Factoran, the right enshrined in Sec. 16,
Art. 2 of the 1987 Constitution is an invokable right. The Bureau of Foresty, being
vested with the power and jurisdiction over all forest activities, including its
preservation have the correlative duty to protect the rights. The violation, denial
or refusal from protecting such right is non-compliance with the duty. Therefore,
the Bureau’s contention is unmeritorious since the ABC Association satisfactorily
stated a valid cause of action.
2. a. Under Sec. 3, Art XII of the 1987 Constitution, the lands of the public domain
are classified as: Agricultural Lands, Forest or Timber Lands, Mineral Lands and
National Parks.

b. With regards to the case, the meritorious contention is the Government’s. As

enunciated by the Court in the case of Republic vs. Rev. Cortez, a parcel of land
that is part of the public dominion/public domain cannot be appropriated. Under
the law, the properties belonging to public dominion cannot be an object of
possession. There has been no positive act from President E neither from the
government as a whole which would declare the land in question as alienable,
and is therefore open to ownership by private entities, which would reasonably
contradict the Proclamation No. 123, made by the same President, which
declares the land in question as military and naval reservations. Thus, due to the
foregoing circumstances, Father D cannot claim ownership over the land.
3. a. As provided by Sec. 6 of the Public Land Act, only the Governor-General/
President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
b. As pronounced in the case of Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry,
there should be a positive act from the government which would declare that the
lands had been reclassified. Therefore, such positive acts, which includes
presidential proclamations, executive orders and such, could be used as
evidence to proclaim the classification or reclassification of a land.

b. No. In the abovementioned case, the Court held that forest lands are not
limited to its descriptive sense, but its description or classification as forest land
extends to its legal nature. Possession of forest lands, no matter how long,
cannot ripen into private ownership. Therefore, E cannot acquire the land for
being classified as forest land and his petition for registration will not prosper.
4. a.There are two punishable offenses under Sec. 77 of PD 705. The first act is the
cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products without
authority, and the second act is the possession of timber and other forest
products without legal documents.

b. Yes. In the case of Villarin vs. People, the Court held that the mere possession
of forest products without the legal documents consummates the crime under
Sec, 77 of PD 706. Whether such forest products came from a legal or illegal
source is immaterial. Moreover, commission of one act is not a pre-requisite of
the other. Thus F is liable for the violation of Sec. 77 of PD 705.
5. a. Administrative confiscation under Sec. 77-A of the PD 705 is done by the
Department Head or his duly authorized representative. The items that may be
confiscated through administrative confiscation are illegally cut, gathered,
removed, or possessed or abandoned forest products and all conveyances used
in the commission of the offense. On the other hand, according to Sec. 77 of PD
705, judicial confiscation is done by the Court . The items that may be confiscated
upon order are any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or
possessed as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally
used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.
b. No. It was clearly stated in the case of DENR vs. Daraman that the DENR has
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to return the conveyances used in the
commission of the offenses pursuant to Sec. 77-A of PD 705. Thus, the action of
the trial court as far as the vehicle is concerned, is improper and incorrect for the
act being outside its conferred jurisdiction.
6. No. As properly laid by the Court in the case of Atok Big Wedge Mining Co vs
IAC, the mere location of mining resources would not automatically convert a
land into a mineral land. The Court further held that Philippine Bill 1902 did not
prescribe the process of recording mining claims to be an operative act of
classifying lands into mineral lands. Thus, IJK Mining Co.’s contention is
untenable.
7. a.L is liable for stealing minerals (sand and the gravel) which is punishable under
Sec. 103 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.
b. No. Since RA No. 7942 is a malum prohibitum, the criminal intent is not
necessary for the act. The defense that the source of the minerals he stole are
legal is immaterial. The mere stealing consummates the crime.
8.a. Under Sec. 77 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the panel or arbitrators has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving rights to mining areas,
disputes involving mineral agreements or permits, disputes involving surface owners,
occupants and claimholders/concessionaires, and disputes pending before the Bureau
and the Department at the date of the effectivity of this Act.
b. Pursuant to Sec. 77 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the Panel of
Arbitrators have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case since the
dispute is between the surface owner (Mr. P) and the occupants (QRS Mining
Co.) of the land where the mining operations are being commenced.
9.

a.
b. Pursuant to Art. 20 of the Petroleum Act of 1949, TUV Dev. Co. may apply with
the Court for and, upon posting such bond as may be fixed and approved by the
Court of First Instance of the province where the land is situated, the court shall
issue an order allowing such right pending the final determination of the proper
amount that shall be paid by the concessionaire to the landowner or legal
occupant
10. YZ may file an appeal with the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court.
11.a. Pursuant to Petroleum Act of 1949, ABC Co. may file a permit with the Director of
Mines for the establishment of petroleum concession.
b.No, the shared capital of the foreigners exceeded the prescribed capital under Sec. 2
of Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution. The 60 percent capital shall be owned by a Filipino
and not by the foreign-owned corporations.
12. According to Sec. 19 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the areas closed to
mining
1.). In military and other government reservations, except upon prior written clearance
by the government agency concerned;
2.) Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological and historic
sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure
projects, public or private works including plantations or valuable crops, except upon
written consent of the government agency or private entity concerned;
3.) In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless with prior consent
of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty payment upon the utilization of
minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties, said royalty forming a trust fund for the
socioeconomic development of the community concerned; and
13.a. According to Art. 2 of the UNCLOS III, territorial waters is located 12 nautical miles
from the baselines. The Philippines exercises absolute sovereignty over this area.
b. b.According to Art. 33 of the UNCLOS III, the contiguous zone is located 24 nautical
miles from the baseline. Here, the Philippines exercises jurisdiction to enforce Fiscal,
Customs, Sanitation and Immigration Laws.
c.According to Art. 77 of the UNCLOS III, EEZ is located 200 nautical miles from the
baseline. Here, the Philippines may exercise the right to exploit the living and non-living
resources that can be found.
d. According to Art. 421 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, all other property of
the State which is not of the character stated under Art. 420 of the NCC is patrimonial
property. To simply put, the patrimonial property of the State is the Private Domain.

e.According to Sec. 3 (h) of PD 705, national park refers to a forest land reservation
essentially of primitive or wilderness character which has been withdrawn from
settlement or occupancy and set aside as such exclusively to preserve the scenery, the
natural and historic objects and the wild animals or plants therein, and to provide
enjoyment of these features in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future
generations.