Legal standing  1997: Pres.

Ramos created the Legal Task

CHAVEZ V PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY AND Force to conduct a study on the legality of
AMARI COASTAL BAY the JVA in view of the Senate Committee
GR. No. 133250 July 9, 2002 report.
FACTS:
 Nature: original Petition for Mandamus  1998: The Philippine Daily Inquirer
with prayer for writ of preliminary published reports on on-going
injunction and a temporary restraining renegotiations between PEA and AMARI
order. Petition also seeks to compel the
Public Estates Authority (PEA) to disclose  PEA Director Nestor Kalaw and PEA
all facts on PEA’s then on-going Chairman ArsenioYulo and former navy
renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and officer Sergio Cruz were members of the
Development Corporation to reclaim negotiating panel
portions of Manila Bay. The petition further
seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new  Frank Chavez filed petition for Mandamus
agreement with AMARI involving such stating that the government stands to lose
reclamation. billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the
reclaimed lands to AMARI and prays that
 1973: The government through the PEA publicly disclose the terms of the
Commission of Public Highways signed a renegotiations of JVA. He cited that the
contract with the Construction and sale to AMARI is in violation of Article 12,
Development Corporation of the Sec. 3 prohibiting sale of alienable lands of
Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim certain the public domain to private corporations
foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay and Article 2 Section 28 and Article 3 Sec.
7 of the Constitution on the right to
 1977: President Marcos issued PD No. information on matters of public concern
1084 creating the PEA, which was
tasked to reclaim land, including foreshore  1999: PEA and AMARI signed Amended JVA
and submerged areas and to develop, which Pres. Estrada approved
improve, acquire x xx lease and sell any
and all kinds of lands. On the same date, ISSUES:
President Marcos issued PD. 1085 1. WON the principal reliefs prayed for in the
transferring to PEA the lands reclaimed in petition are moot and academic because
the foreshore and offshore of the Manila of the subsequent events
Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal 2. WON the petition merits dismissal for
Road and Reclamation Project failure to observe the principle governing
(MCCRRP) the hierarchy of courts
3. WON the petition merits dismissal for non-
 1981: Pres. Marcos issued a memorandum exhaustion of administrative remedies
ordering PEA to amend its contract with 4. WON petitioner has locus standi to bring
CDCP which stated that CDCP shall this suit
transfer in favor of PEA the areas 5. WON the constitutional right to
reclaimed by CDCP in the MCCRRP information includes official information on
on-going negotiations before a final
 1988: Pres. Aquino issued Special Patent agreement
granting and transferring to PEA parcels of 6. WON the stipulations in the amended joint
land so reclaimed under the MCCRRP. venture agreement for the transfer to
Subsequently she transferred in the name AMARI of certain lands, reclaimed and still
of PEA the three reclaimed islands known to be reclaimed, violate the 1987
as the “Freedom Islands” constitution; and
7. WON the court is the proper forum for
 1995: PEA entered into a Joint Venture raising the issue of whether the amended
Agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a joint venture agreement is grossly
private corporation, to develop the disadvantageous to the government.
Freedom Islands and this was done o Threshold issue: whether
without public bidding AMARI, a private corporation,
can acquire and own under the
 Pres. Ramos through Executive Secretary amended JVA 367.5 has. of
Ruben Torres approved the JVA reclaimed foreshore and
submerged area in Manila Bay
 1996: Senate Pres.Maceda delivered a in view of Sections 2 & 3, Art.
privileged speech in the Senate and 12 of the 1987 constitution
denounced the JVA as the “grandmother
of all scams”. As a result, the Senate HELD
conducted investigations. Among the (1) The prayer to enjoin the signing of the
conclusions were: Amended JVA on constitutional grounds
necessarily includes preventing its
1. The reclaimed lands PEA seeks to implementation if in the meantime PEA and
transfer to AMARI under the JVA are AMARI have signed one in violation of the
lands of the public domain which Constitution and if already implemented, to annul
the government has not classified the effects of an unconstitutional contract
as alienable lands and therefore
PEA cannot alienate these lands; (2) The principle of hierarchy of courts applies
2. The certificates of the title covering generally to cases involving factual questions
the Freedom Islands are thus void,
and Reasoning: the instant case raises constitutional
3. The JVA itself is illegal issues of transcendental importance to the public
 2
(3) The principle of exhaustion of government can make such
administrative remedies does not apply when classification and declaration only after
the issue involved is a purely legal or PEA has reclaimed these submerged
constitutional question areas. Only then can these lands qualify
as agricultural lands of the public
(4) Petitioner has standing if petition is of domain, which are the only natural
transcendental public importance and as resources the government can alienate
such, there is the right of a citizen to bring a
taxpayer’s suit on these matters of o Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer
transcendental public importance to AMARI, a private corporation,
ownership of 77.34 has.of the Freedom
(5) The constitutional right to information Islands, such transfer is void for being
includes official information on on-going contrary to Section 3, Article 12 of the
negotiations before a final contract and must 1987 Constitution which prohibits
therefore constitute definite propositions by private corporations from acquiring any
the government and should not cover kind of alienable land of the public
recognized exceptions like privileged domain
information, military and diplomatic secrets o Since the Amended JVA also seeks to
and similar matters affecting national transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
security and public order has.of still submerged areas of Manila
Bay, such transfer is void for being
Reasoning The State policy of full contrary to Section 2, Article 12 of the
transparency in all transactions involving 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
public interest reinforces the people’s right to alienation of natural resources other
information on matters of public concern. PEA than agricultural lands of the public
must prepare all the data and disclose them domain. PEA may reclaim these
to the public at the start of the disposition submerged areas. Thereafter, the
process, long before the consummation of the government can classify the reclaimed
contract. While the evaluation or review is on- lands as alienable or disposable, and
going, there are no “official acts, transactions, further declare them no longer needed
or decisions” on the bids or proposals but for public services. Still, the transfer of
once the committee makes its official such reclaimed alienable lands of the
recommendation, there arises a definite public domain to AMARI will be void in
proposition on the part of the government view of Section 3, Article 12 that
prohibits private corporations from
(6) In a form of a summary: acquiring any kind of alienable land of
o The 157.84 has.of reclaimed lands the public domain.
comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the Reasoning:
name of PEA, are alienable lands of the  CA 141 of the Philippine National
public domain. PEA may lease these Assembly empowers the president to
lands to private corporations but may classify lands of the public domain into
not sell or transfer ownership of these alienable or disposable (Sec. 6).The
lands to private corporations. PEA may President, upon recommendation of
only sell these lands to Philippine the Secretary of Agriculture and
citizens, subject to ownership limitations Commerce, shall from time to time
in the 1987 Constitution and existing classify the lands of the public domain
laws. into—(a) Alienable of disposable, (b)
timber, and (c) mineral lands.
o The 592.15 has.of submerged areas of  The President must first officially
Manila Bay remain inalienable natural classify these lands as alienable or
resources of the public domain and disposable, and then declare them
outside the commerce of man until open to disposition or concession.
classified as alienable or disposable  Sec. 59 states that the lands
lands open to disposition and declared disposable under this title shall be
no longer needed for public service. The classified as follows: (a) Lands
 3
reclaimed by the Government by not exceeding 25 years, renewable for
dredging, filling, or other means; (b) not more than 25 years, and not to
Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands (d) Lands exceed 1,000 has.in area.
not included in any of the foregoing  ration behind the ban on corporations
classes. from acquiring except through lease is
 Sec. 61 states that the lands not well understood. If the purpose is
comprised in classes (a), (b) and (c) of to equitably diffuse lands ownership
section 59 shall be disposed f to then the Consti could have simply
private parties by lease only and not limited the size of alienable lands of
otherwise the public domain that corporations
 After the effectivity of the 1935 could acquire. If the intent were to
Constitution, government reclaimed encourage “owner-cultivatorship”
and marshy disposable lands of the and the economic family-size farm
public domain continued to be only and to prevent a recurrence of
leased and not sold to private parties. cases like the instant case, then
These lands remained suis generic as placing the land in the name of a
the only alienable or disposable lands corporation would be more
of the public domain the government effective in preventing the break-
could not sell to private parties. The up of farmlands. If the farmland
only way that the government can sell were registered in the name of a
to private parties government corporation, upon the death of the
reclaimed and marshy disposable owner, his heirs would inherit shares
lands of the public domain is for the in the corporation instead of
legislature to pass a law authorizing subdivided parcels of the farmland.
such sale. This would prevent the continuing
break-up of farmlands into smaller and
 PD No. 1085, coupled with President smaller plots from one generation to
Aquino’s actual issuance of a special the next. In actual practice then,
patent covering the Freedom Islands, is this ban strengthens the consti
equivalent to an official proclamation limitation on individuals from
classifying the Freedom Islands as acquiring more than the allowed
alienable or disposable lands of the public area of alienable lands of the
domain. PD No. 1085 and President public domain. Without the ban,
Aquino’s issuance of a land patent also individuals who already acquired
constitute a declaration that the Freedom the maximum area of alienable
Islands are no longer needed for public lands of the public domain could
service. The Freedom Islands are thus easily set up corporations to
alienable or disposable lands of the acquire more alienable public
public domain, open to disposition or lands. An individual could own as
concession to qualified parties. many corporations as his means
 would allow him. He could even hide
his ownership of a corporation by
 in case of sale or lease of
putting his nominees as stockholders
disposable lands of the public
of the corporation.
domain, a public bidding is
required
 1987 Constitution declares that all
natural resources are owned by the
State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated.
Article 12, Sec. 3 states that alienable
lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not
hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period
 4
In the instant case, the only patent and Alienable lands of the public domain held by
certificates of title issued are those in the name of government entities under Section 60 of CA No. 141
PEA, a wholly government owned corporation remain public lands because they cannot be
performing public as well as proprietary functions. alienated or encumbered unless Congress passes a
No patent or certificate of title has been issued to law authorizing their disposition. Congress,
any private party. No one is asking the Director of however, cannot authorize the sale to private
Lands to cancel PEA’s patent or certificates of title. corporations of reclaimed alienable lands of the
In fact, the thrust of the instant petition is that PEA’s public domain because of the constitutional ban.
certificates of title should remain with PEA, and the Only individuals can benefit from such law.
land covered by these certificates, being alienable
lands of the public domain, should not be sold to a The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands
private corporation. in accordance with Section 60 of CA No. 141 does
not automatically convert alienable lands of the
Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD public domain into private or patrimonial lands. The
No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant private or alienable lands of the public domain must be
public ownership of the land. Registration is not a transferred to qualified private parties, or to
mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence government entities not tasked to dispose of public
of ownership previously conferred by any of the lands, before these lands can become private or
recognized modes of acquiring ownership. patrimonial lands. Otherwise, the constitutional ban
Registration does not give the registrant a better will become illusory if Congress can declare lands
right than what the registrant had prior to the of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands
registration.i[102] The registration of lands of the in the hands of a government agency tasked to
public domain under the Torrens system, by itself, dispose of public lands. This will allow private
cannot convert public lands into private lands.ii[103] corporations to acquire directly from government
agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior to
Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of such law, are concededly public lands
the patent or issuance of the certificate of title the
alienable land of the public domain automatically As the central implementing agency tasked to
becomes private land cannot apply to government undertake reclamation projects nationwide, with
units and entities like PEA. The transfer of the authority to sell reclaimed lands, PEA took the place
Freedom Islands to PEA was made subject to the of DENR as the government agency charged with
provisions of CA No. 141 as expressly stated in leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public
Special Patent No. 3517 issued by then President domain. The reclaimed lands being leased or sold
Aquino, to wit: by PEA are not private lands, in the same manner
that DENR, when it disposes of other alienable
“NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW YE, that by lands, does not dispose of private lands but
authority of the Constitution of the alienable lands of the public domain. Only when
Philippines and in conformity with the qualified private parties acquire these lands will the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. lands become private lands. In the hands of the
1084, supplemented by Commonwealth government agency tasked and authorized to
Act No. 141, as amended, there are dispose of alienable of disposable lands of the
hereby granted and conveyed unto the public domain, these lands are still public, not
Public Estates Authority the aforesaid private lands.
tracts of land containing a total area of
one million nine hundred fifteen thousand Furthermore, PEA’s charter expressly states
eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) that PEA “shall hold lands of the public domain”
square meters; the technical description of as well as “any and all kinds of lands.” PEA can hold
which are hereto attached and made an both lands of the public domain and private lands.
integral part hereof.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the mere fact that alienable lands of the
public domain like the Freedom Islands are
Thus, the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the transferred to PEA and issued land patents or
Freedom Islands on matters not covered by PD No. certificates of title in PEA’s name does not
1084. Section 60 of CA No. 141 prohibits, “except automatically make such lands private.
when authorized by Congress,” the sale of alienable
lands of the public domain that are transferred to The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in
government units or entities. Section 60 of CA No. our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas
141 constitutes, under Section 44 of PD No. 1529, a form part of the public domain and are inalienable.
“statutory lien affecting title” of the registered land Lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged
even if not annotated on the certificate of title. iii[104] areas also form part of the public domain and are
 5
also inalienable, unless converted pursuant to law present state, the 592.15 hectares of
into alienable or disposable lands of the public submerged areas are inalienable and
domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the outside the commerce of man.
government are sui generis, not available for sale
to private parties unlike other alienable public lands. 3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to
Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as transfer to AMARI, a private
areas for public use or public service. Alienable corporation, ownership of 77.34
lands of the public domain, increasingly becoming hectaresiv[110] of the Freedom Islands,
scarce natural resources, are to be distributed such transfer is void for being contrary
equitably among our ever-growing population. To to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
insure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and Constitution which prohibits private
1987 Constitutions have barred private corporations corporations from acquiring any kind of
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the alienable land of the public domain.
public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of 4.Since the Amended JVA also seeks to
inalienable natural resources of the State, or seek to transfer to AMARI ownership of
circumvent the constitutional ban on alienation of 290.156 hectaresv[111] of still submerged
lands of the public domain to private corporations, areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is
do so at their own risk. void for being contrary to Section 2,
We can now summarize our conclusions as Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
follows: which prohibits the alienation of natural
resources other than agricultural lands
1.The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands of the public domain. PEA may
comprising the Freedom Islands, now reclaim these submerged areas.
covered by certificates of title in the Thereafter, the government can
name of PEA, are alienable lands of classify the reclaimed lands as
the public domain. PEA may lease alienable or disposable, and further
these lands to private corporations but declare them no longer needed for
may not sell or transfer ownership of public service. Still, the transfer of
these lands to private corporations. such reclaimed alienable lands of the
PEA may only sell these lands to public domain to AMARI will be void in
Philippine citizens, subject to the view of Section 3, Article XII of the
ownership limitations in the 1987 1987 Constitution which prohibits
Constitution and existing laws. private corporations from acquiring any
kind of alienable land of the public
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged domain.
areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable
natural resources of the public domain Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly
until classified as alienable or Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987
disposable lands open to disposition Constitution. Under Article 1409vi[112] of the Civil
and declared no longer needed for Code, contracts whose “object or purpose is
public service. The government can contrary to law,” or whose “object is outside the
make such classification and commerce of men,” are “inexistent and void from
declaration only after PEA has the beginning.” The Court must perform its duty to
reclaimed these submerged areas. defend and uphold the Constitution, and therefore
Only then can these lands qualify as declares the Amended JVA null and void ab initio.
agricultural lands of the public domain,
which are the only natural resources
the government can alienate. In their
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi