MAGALLANES, et al., petitioner v ERMITA, et al.

, respondents
G. R. No. 187167 | August 16, 2011 | Carpio, J

DOCTRINE:
The principle of International Law shall control the acquisition or loss of territory. The following principles are:
1. Occupation
2. Accretion
3. Cession
4. Prescription
FACTS:
In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046) demarcating the maritime baselines of the
Philippines as an Archipelagic State. This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I), codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over
their territorial sea, the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the
second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046
remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (RA 5446) correcting
typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny. The change
was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the UNCLOS III, which the Philippines
ratified on February 27, 1984. Among others, UNCLOS III prescribed the water-land ratio, length, and contour
of baselines of archipelagic states like the Philippines and set the deadline for the filing of application for the
extended continental shelf. Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the
location of some base points around the Philippine Archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the
Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of Islands, whose islands generate their own
applicable maritime zones.

ISSUES (concerning territoriality)

Whether or not RA 9522 is constitutional

ARGUMENTS
Petitioners
Petitioners argued that the RA 9522 dismembers a large portion of national territory; that the regime of islands
framework weakens territorial claim over Kalayaan Group and Scarborough Shoal; that the claim over Sabah was
relinquished by the statute; and that the RA 9522 converts internal waters into archipelagic waters.

Respondents
The enactment of the RA 9522 is a compliance of the Philippines with UNCLOS III guidelines as a signatory,
adhering to the principles of the doctrine “pacta sunt servanda” which means agreements must be kept.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held the RA 9522 Constitutional
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Carpio, based on the following rationale, declared RA 9522
Constitutional:
1. Baseline laws such as RA 9522 are enacted to mark-out specific base points along the coasts of the State from
which baselines are drawn, either straightforward or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to
measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf
xxx Article 48 of UNCLOS III xxx
2. Baselines Laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with
precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves.
3. The regime of Island framework is not inconsistent nor weakens territorial claim of the Philippines over
KIG and Scarborough. In RA 3046, KIG and Scarborough are also drawn outside the Philippine Archipelagic
Line. The Article 2 of RA 9522 provides that while KIG and Scarborough Shoal is classified as a regime of
islands, it specifically stated that the Philippines exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction under UNCLOS.
4. The Philippine did not lose the alleged 15,000 nautical miles of territorial waters. In fact, by optimizing
the location of base points, through RA 9522 and UNCLOS III, the Philippines has increased its total maritime
space by 145,216 nautical miles.
 WILLIAM C. REAGAN, ETC., petitioner vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent
G.R. No. L-26379 | December 27, 1969 | FERNANDO, J.

DOCTRINE:
By the Military Bases Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States
exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency over the
bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein.

The Philippines being an independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain.There is no
portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws
govern therein. And everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. The extent of its jurisdiction is both territorial
and personal.

FACTS:
William C. Reagan, a citizen of the US, which provides technical assistance to the US Air Force, was assigned at
Clark Air Base. Nine months thereafter, Reagan imported a tax-free 1960 Cadillac car with accessories valued at $6,443.83,
including other charges. After 2 months, Reagan sold his car for $6,600.00 to Willie Johnson, Jr., an American Citizen --
the sale was executed at Clark Air Base. On the same date, the car was later sold to Fred Meneses for ₱32,000.00 as
evidenced by a deed of sale executed in Manila.

As a result of the sale transaction, Willie Johnson, Jr. paid an income tax in the sum of ₱2,979.00. After paying the tax, he
sought a refund for income tax in the sum of ₱2,979.00, claiming that he was exempt as the Clark Air Base in legal
contemplation is a base outside the Philippines. Therefore, the sale having taken place on “foreign soil”.

ISSUE/S:
WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID INCOME TAX OF ₱2,979.00 WAS LEGALLY COLLECTED BY
RESPONDENT FOR PETITIONER

RULING:
THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS OF MAY 12, 1966 DENYING THE REFUND OF P2,979.00 AS
THE INCOME TAX PAID BY THE PETITIONER IS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER.

The claim that the Clark Air Force is foreign soil or territory for purposes of income tax legislation is clearly without support
in law. There is nothing in the Military Bases Agreement that lends support to such an assertion. It has not become foreign
soil or territory. This country's jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not excluding the power to tax, have been preserved.
 Bacani v. NACOCO
CASE NO. G.R. L-9657 – 100 Phil. 468 | November 29, 1956 | Bautista Angelo, J.

DOCTRINE: Article 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917

“They do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation…it was given a corporate
power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation
Law..”

FACTS:
• Plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut
Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for Defendant, requested said stenographers
for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing.
• Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages
and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees.
• The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto
for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page.
• The Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and ordered that it shall be reimbursed for the
reason that NACOCO, being a public corporation, is exempted from the fees.
• For reimbursement to take place, it was further ordered that the amount of P25 per payday be deducted from the
salary of Bacani and P10 from the salary of Matoto.

The Court of First Instance of Manila chose to prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial
ruling that the National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.

ISSUE/S: W/N NACOCO is a government entity and should be exempt from legal fees.

RULING:
The Supreme Court decided that National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) is not a government entity. There are functions
which our government is required to exercise to promote its objectives as expressed in our Constitution and which are
exercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty (constitute), and those which it may exercise to promote merely the welfare,
progress and prosperity of the people (ministrant). To this latter class belongs the organization of those corporations owned
or controlled by the government to promote certain aspects of the economic life of our people such as the National Coconut
Corporation. These are what we call government-owned or controlled corporations which may take on the form of a private
enterprise or one organized with powers and formal characteristics of a private corporation under the Corporation Law.
They do not acquire the status of a government entity for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification
of municipal or public corporation. NACOCO is a Government Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC). Thus, not part
of the government.
THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT and COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (ACCFA), petitioner,
vs.
ACCFA SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, ACCFA WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, and THE COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,respondents.
G.R. No. L-21484 | November 29, 1969 | J. MAKALINTAL

DOCTRINE:
• Republic Act No. 3844 - “required the reorganization of the administrative machinery of the Agricultural Credit
and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) and changed its name to Agricultural Credit Administration
(ACA).”
• Executive Order No. 75 - “placed the ACA under the Land Reform Project Administration together with the other
member agencies, the personnel complement of all of which are placed in one single pool and made available for
assignment from one agency to another, subject only to Civil Service laws, rules and regulations, position
classification and wage structures.”

FACTS:

Under the Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, ACCFA was reorganized into the Agricultural
Credit Administration (ACA). A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was created between ACCFA Supervisors’
Association (ASA) and ACCFA Workers’ Association (AWA), collectively known as the Unions, and (at the time) ACCFA.
This was to be effective on July 1, 1962. However, due to what the Unions claimed as the non-implementation of the CBA,
they held a strike and, thereafter, together with their mother union, CUGCO, filed a complaint against ACCFA on the
grounds of alleged employment of unfair labor practices which, thus, violates the CBA, to allegedly discourage the Unions
from exercising their right to self-organization, discrimination against members of the said Unions in the matter of
promotions, and refusal to bargain.

The ACCFA moved for a reconsideration but was turned down. Thereafter, it brought an appeal by certiorari. In the course
of this appeal, RA 3844 was passed, thus turning ACCFA to ACA. Thereafter, ASA and AWA filed a petition to obtain
sole bargaining rights with ACA which the trial court and CIR ruled in favor of. The ACA, however, filed this petition to
the Supreme Court (SC) on the grounds that it performs governmental, not proprietary functions.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not ACA performs governmental functions.

RULING:
Yes, ACA performs governmental functions, Under RA 3844, ACA, along with other governmental agencies, was
established to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture. However, the Unions have no right to bargain collectively
with the petitioner, nor to the certification election sought by them. Thus, no further fringe benefits may be demanded on
the grounds of a collective bargaining agreement.

Separate Opinion:

The SC, however, made a statement on the growing complexities of the times, thereby, rendering the traditional
classification of governmental functions (ministrant and constituent) as unrealistic, not to say obsolete.
SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS [Special Former Twelfth Division],
HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26 (San Fernando City, La Union) & The REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

352 SCRA 334 | February 20, 2001 | MELO, J.:

DOCTRINE:
- Republic Act No. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, created the Bases
Conversion and Development Authority.

- Section 2 of Proclamation No. 216, issued on July 27, 1993, also provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 2. Transfer of Wallace Air Station Areas to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. — All areas
covered by the Wallace Air Station as embraced and defined by the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the
Philippines and the United States of America, as amended, excluding those covered by Presidential Proclamations and
some 25-hectare area for the radar and communication station of the Philippine Air Force, are hereby transferred to the
Bases Conversion Development Authority.

- Revival of judgment which is governed by Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code and Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules
on Civil Procedure. Article 1144(3) provides that an action upon a judgment "must be brought within 10 years from the
time the right of action accrues." On the other hand, Section 6, Rule 39 provides that a final and executory judgment or
order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry, but that after the lapse of such time,
and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. Taking these two provisions
into consideration, it is plain that an action for revival of judgment must be brought within ten years from the time said
judgment becomes final.

- Under Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest."

FACTS:
- On October 29, 1958, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-381 was issued in favor of Rafael Galvez, over four
parcels of land.

- Lots No. 1 and 4 were conveyed by Rafael Galvez in favor of Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, Regina Bustos,
and Erlinda Balatbat in a deed of sale.
Consequently, Transfer Certificate No. T-4304 was issued in favor of the buyers covering Lots No. 1 and 4.

- Mamaril, Et. Al. later sold Lots No. 1 and 4 to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. The deed of sale
covering the aforesaid property was inscribed as Entry No. 9173 on TCT No. T-4304. Subsequently, Transfer
Certificate No. T-4314 was issued in the name of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company as owner of Lots No. 1
and 4.

- Unknown to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, the Court of First Instance of La Union, Second Judicial
District, issued an Order in Land Registration Case No. N-361 (LRC Record No. N-14012) entitled "Rafael
Galvez, Applicant, Eliza Bustos, Et Al., Parties-In-Interest; Republic of the Philippines, Movant" declaring OCT
No. 0-381 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of La Union issued in the name of Rafael Galvez, null and
void, and ordered the cancellation thereof.
(Court of First Instance Decision)

- Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company sold to herein petitioner Lots No. 1 and 4, with the deed being entered
in TCT NO. 4314 as entry No. 12381. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5710 was thus issued in favor of the
petitioner which starting since then exercised proprietary rights over Lots No. 1 and 4.

-In the meantime, Rafael Galvez filed his motion for reconsideration against the order issued by the trial court
declaring OCT No. 0-381 null and void. The motion was denied on January 25, 1965. On appeal, the Court of
 Appeals ruled in favor of the Republic of the Philippines in a Resolution promulgated on August 14, 1973 in CA-
G.R. No. 36061-R.
(CA Decision)

-Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment, certifying that its decision dated August 14, 1973
became final and executory on October 23, 1973.

-On April 22, 1974, the trial court in L.R.C. Case No. N-361 issued a writ of execution of the judgment which
was served on the Register of Deeds, San Fernando, La Union on April 29, 1974.

-Twenty four long years thereafter, on January 14, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General received a letter dated
January 11, 1999 from Mr. Victor G. Floresca, Vice-President, John Hay Poro Point Development Corporation,
stating that the aforementioned orders and decision of the trial court in L.R.C. No. N-361 have not been executed
by the Register of Deeds, San Fernando, La Union despite receipt of the writ of execution.

- On April 21, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint for revival of judgment and cancellation
of titles before the Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region (Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union)
docketed therein as Civil Case No. 6346 entitled, "Republic of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Heirs of Rafael
Galvez, represented by Teresita Tan, Reynaldo Mamaril, Elisa Bustos, Erlinda Balatbat, Regina Bustos, Shipside
Incorporated and the Register of Deeds of La Union, Defendants."

- In its complaint, the Solicitor General argued that since the trial court in LRC Case No. 361 had ruled and
declared OCT No. 0-381 to be null and void, which ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
the defendants-successors-in-interest of Rafael Galvez have no valid title over the property covered by OCT No.
0-381, and the subsequent Torrens titles issued in their names should be consequently canceled.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines can maintain the action for revival of judgment herein.

RULING:

From the records of this case, it is clear that the judgment sought to be revived became final on October 23, 1973. On
the other hand, the action for revival of judgment was instituted only in 1999, or more than twenty-five (25) years after
the judgment had become final. Hence, the action is barred by extinctive prescription considering that such an action
can be instituted only within ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrues.

While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the same may not be invoked by the government in this
case since it is no longer interested in the subject matter. While Camp Wallace may have belonged to the government at
the time Rafael Galvez’s title was ordered canceled in Land Registration Case No. N-361, the same no longer holds
true today.

With the transfer of Camp Wallace to the BCDA, the government no longer has a right or interest to protect.
Consequently, the Republic is not a real party of interest and it may not institute instant action. Nor may it raise the
defense of imprescriptibility, the same being applicable only in cases where the government is a party in interest.
 DEFENDING PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS IN THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA
RET. JUSTICE ANTONIO CARPIO

FACTS:
South China Sea's Importance
Around $5.3 trillion in ship-borne goods traverse this sea annually; $1 trillion of which are from USA's inbound
and outbound trade and another $1 trillion from Europe. Further, four leading exporters use this seas for their trade: China,
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. These countries also use the South China Sea for their imports of oil; 65% of petroleum
imports of South Korea uses the South China Sea's path, 60% for Japan and Taiwan, and 50% for China. A significant
amount of 12% in annual global fish catch are sourced from this area considering that it covers only 2.5% of the total ocean
surface. Nevertheless, one of the most vital importance of this area is its richness in methane hydrates, in which natural gas
can be extracted. It is estimated to be more abundant than oil and gas, wherein China estimates that it could power their
economy for 100 years.

UNCLOS Rules
Article 121 of UNCLOS states that if a sandbar/rock is above the water during the hightides, it will be considered
an island; hence, it is entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea. An additional 188 nautical mile is also provided which
accounts for the Exclusive Economic Zone of the coastal state. Freedom of navigation and overflight operations is
allowed in this area even without the consent of the coastal state.

China's Claim of the Islands

After the Japanese left, China took control of various Paracels: Amphitrite Group of Paracels, 1946; Itu Aba, 1946;
Crescent Group of Paracels, 1974; Fiery Cross Reef, 1987.
In 1988 China seized Subi Reef; Johnson South Reef, 1988; Mischief Reef, 1995; Scarborough Shoal, 2012;
Luconia Shoal from Malaysia, 2013; Spratlys, 2015-2016; Sandy Cay, 2017, by surrounding them by their maritime vessels.
In February 2016, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that China and the Philippines are very close neighbors,
separated by just a "narrow body of water." This is true if China upholds their nine-dashed line in which we will be left with
a sliver of territorial sea in the western side of the
archipelago.

China's Historical Claims and Facts Against them

1. China claims that they discovered the Philippines, through Admiral Zheng He, 600 years ago, 100 years earlier than
Spain when Magellan discovered our country. This claim equates to China's claim over the islands of the
Philippines. However, being "generous," China will not recover Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, but they will keep
the Spratlys and Scarborough shoal. This claim is rebutted through the International Zheng He Society of Singapore.
In the book published by Hsu Yun- Ts'iao, declares that the admiral never visited the Philippines. Chang Cheng,
was confused to be the old Chinese name for the Philippines, but it was a Ming dynasty for a Malay state in Indo-
China.
2. China claims that Spratlys and Scarborough are part of their territory. However, China's Tang dynasty, Song
dynasty, Yuan dynasty, Ming dynasty, and Qing dynasty's illustration of the map of China shows that Hainan is the
southernmost territory of China. This is significantly distant from the islands that they claim. Further, in China's
Nota Verbale to the French government in 1932, protesting the latter's occupation of the paracels, states that: "These
groups (paracels) lie 145 nautical miles from Hainan island, and form the SOUTHERNMOST part of the Chinese
territory" In relation to the illustration of the dyansties, all versioms of the constitution of China (1914, 1924, 1937,
and 1947) asserts that their territory is the traditional territory (based on the illustration If the Qing dynasty) Even
in their wildest dreams, as illustrated in the Map of China's Natural Humiliation (1927 and 1938), did not include
Spratlys and Scarborough as part of their territory. Said map is drawn by private citizens which drew a line to the
territories they seek to reclaim after losing them. The first claim of China of the Spratlys was in their 1946/1947
handbook. They claim the coral islands (Spratlys) but also states that it is under dispute between the Commonwealth
of the Philippines and Indo-China.

3. Markers were found in the Paracels and in Spratlys. In the Paracels, markers were dated 1901, however, based on
a confidential report found in a book, narrating a secret mission of plantimg antedated markers in the paracels. The report
was dated in 1937. On the same book, and found on the editor's note stating that the markers in Spratlys may have been
erected in 1956, not 1946 as seen in the markers.

China's argument (February 25, 2016)

"The Treaty of Paris (1898), Treaty of Washington (1900), Treaty of British (1930) all regulated the Philippines'
western boundary line at 118° east longitude. Areas in the west of the 118° east longitude do not belong the Philippines."
Spratlys and Scarborough shoal were outside the treaty lines and China used this as their argument.
However, the Philippines' defense is that in the 1900 Washington treaty, it clarified that it had also relinquished to
the United States "all title and claim... to all islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago, lying outside the lines." This
was for the consideration of $100,000.
To determine the islands lying outside the lines, the Philippines used the 1734 Spanish map showing the Philippine
territory. In this map, it shows Los Bajos de Paragua (Spratlys) and Paracot (Scarborough Shoal) in the illustration

How can we enforce the ruling?

Based on the facts above, through the documents as well as 170 ancient maps the Philippines submitted to the
tribunal, we asked said tribunal to rule against China's historic rights.

Ruling of the Tribunal

We won 381,000 square kilometers of maritime zone in the South China Sea. Moreover, Mischief reef (where China
had already built air and navy bases) are deemed part of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines.

Justice Antonio Carpio asks us Filipinos to:

1. Encourage all navies of the world to exercise freedom of navigation in the high seas and exclusive economic zones
to affirm and enforce the ruling.
2. Ask the peoples of the world to help the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei explain to the
Chinese people that China has no historic claim to the South China Sea
3. Continue resorting to the Rule of Law as embodied in UNCLOS. War is not an option, and has never been an
option.

War is not an option is on the basis of: Section 2, Article II and Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution