 1) VICTORIA SEGOVIA et al vs THE rights and obligations under environmental

CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION laws. This has been confirmed by this Court's

FACTS: rulings in Arigo v. Swift, and International
This is a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BioTech
and continuing mandamus to compel the implementation Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia
of various environmental laws and executive issuances. (Philippines).
Petitioners are Carless People of the Philippines, parents,
representing their children, who in turn represent 2. NO, the petition should not be dismissed.
"Children of the Future, and Car-owners who would The RPEC allows direct resort to this Court, it is
rather not have cars if good public transportation were ultimately within the Court's discretion whether
safe, convenient, accessible, available, and reliable". or not to accept petitions brought directly before
They claim that they are entitled to the issuance of the it. Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is an
extraordinary writs due to the alleged failure and refusal extraordinary remedy covering environmental
of respondents to perform an act mandated by damage of such magnitude that will prejudice
environmental laws resulting to massive environmental the life, health or property of inhabitants in two
damage and in violation of the petitioners' constitutional or more cities or provinces. It is designed for a
right to a balanced and healthful ecology and may even narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger
be tantamount to deprivation of life, and of life sources protection for environmental rights, aiming,
or "land, water, and air" by the government without due among others, to provide a speedy and effective
process of law. On the other side, respondents deny the resolution of a case involving the violation of
specific violations alleged by the petitioners. They stated one's constitutional right to a healthful and
that measures were taken and are continually taken to balanced ecology that transcends political and
improve the traffic situation in Philippine roads and to territorial boundaries, and to address the
improve the environment condition. potentially exponential nature of large-scale
Accordingly, the Petitioners seek to compel: (a) the ecological threats. At the very least, the
public respondents to: (1) implement the Road Sharing magnitude of the ecological problems
Principle in all roads; (2) divide all roads lengthwise, contemplated under the RPEC satisfies at least
one-half (½) for all-weather sidewalk and bicycling, the one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of
other half for Filipino-made transport courts, as when direct resort is allowed where it
vehicles; (3) submit a time-bound action plan to is dictated by public welfare. 
implement the Road Sharing Principle throughout the
3.
country; (b) the Office of the President, Cabinet officials
a. The writ of kalikasan cannot be issued.
and public employees of Cabinet members to reduce
It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for
their fuel consumption by fifty percent (50%) and to take the issuance of a writ of kalikasan has to show that a
public transportation fifty percent (50%) of the law, rule or regulation was violated or would be
time; (c) Public respondent DPWH to demarcate and violated. In this case, apart from repeated invocation of
delineate the road right-of-way in all roads and the constitutional right to health and to a balanced and
sidewalks; and (d) Public respondent DBM to instantly healthful ecology and bare allegations that their right
release funds for Road Users' Tax.6 was violated, the petitioners failed to show that public
respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission
ISSUES: that constitutes a violation of the petitioners' right to a
1. Whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the balanced and healthful ecology.
petition; In fact, apart from adducing expert testimony on the
2. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for adverse effects of air pollution on public health, the
failing to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; petitioners did not go beyond mere allegation in
and establishing the unlawful acts or omissions on the part of
3. Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or the public respondents that have a causal link or
Continuing Mandamus should issue. reasonable connection to the actual or threatened
RULINGS: violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
1. YES, the Petitioners has legal standing. The healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under
Court agrees with the petitioners' position as the Rules, as required of petitions of this nature. On the
they identified that they filed the suit as citizens, other hand, public respondents sufficiently showed that
taxpayers, and representatives; The RPEC did they did not unlawfully refuse to implement or neglect
liberalize the requirements on standing, allowing the laws, executive and administrative orders as claimed
the filing of citizen's suit for the enforcement of by the petitioners. Projects and programs that seek to
improve air quality were undertaken by the respondents, Tower. On November 15, 2010, West Tower
jointly and in coordination with stakeholders, such as: Condominium Corporation (West Tower Corp.)
priority tagging of expenditures for climate change interposed the present Petition for the Issuance of a Writ
adaptation and mitigation, the Integrated Transport of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West Tower
System which is aimed to decongest major and in representation of the surrounding communities in
thoroughfares, Truck Ban, Anti-Smoke Belching Barangay Bangkal, Makati City. West Tower Corp. also
Campaign, Anti-Colorum, Mobile Bike Service alleged that it is joined by the civil society and sever all
Programs, and Urban Re-Greening Programs. people’s organizations, non –governmental
b. The issuance of Writ of Mandamus cannot organizations and public interest groups who have
be issued. expressed their intent to join the suit because of the
First, the petitioners failed to prove direct or personal magnitude of the environmental issues involved.
injury arising from acts attributable to the respondents to
be entitled to the writ. While the requirements of Issue and Ratio:
standing had been liberalized in environmental cases, the 1. Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection
general rule of real party-in-interest applies to a petition Order should be issued to direct the respondents
for continuing mandamus. to perform or to desist from performing acts in
Second, the Road Sharing Principle is precisely as it is order to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate the
denominated - a principle. It cannot be considered an affected environment?
absolute imposition to encroach upon the province of
public respondents to determine the manner by which NO, to recall, petitioners’ persistent plea is for
this principle is applied or considered in their policy the conversion of the November 19, 2010 TEPO
decisions. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of into a Permanent Environmental Protection
duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that Order (PEPO) pursuant to Sec. 3, 46 Rule 5 of
are discretionary,42 and the official can only be directed the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
by mandamus to act but not to act one way or the other. For its part, respondent FPIC asserts that regular
The duty being enjoined in mandamus must be one testing, as well as the measures that are already
according to the terms provided in the law itself. Thus, in place, will sufficiently address any concern of
the recognized rule is that, in the performance of an oil leaks from the WOPL
official duty or act involving discretion, the
corresponding official can only be directed 2. Whether FGC and the directors and officers of
by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other. respondents FPIC and FGC may be held liable
On the present case, there is no showing of unlawful under the environmental protection order?
neglect on the part of the respondents to perform any act
that the law specifically enjoins as a duty - there being NO, Individual directors and officers of FPIC
nothing in the executive issuances relied upon by the and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in
petitioners that specifically enjoins the bifurcation of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases
roads to implement the Road Sharing Principle. To the that in a petition for a writ of kalikasan, the
opposite, the respondents were able to show that they Court cannot grant the award of damages to
were and are actively implementing projects and individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of
programs that seek to improve air quality. the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
As duly noted by the CA, the civil case and
 2) West Tower v. PIC (2015) criminal complaint filed by petitioners against
respondents are the proper proceedings to
Facts: ventilate and determine the individual liability of
Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, (1) respondent.
the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System, which covers
and (b) the Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) System. In May  3) HON. RAMON JESUS PAJE, in his
2010, however, a leakage from one of the pipelines was capacity as DENR Secretary v. Hon. Teodoro
suspected after the residents of West Tower Casino, et al. G.R. No. 207257        February
Condominium (West Tower) started to smell gas within 3, 2015
the condominium. Petitioner FPIC initially disowned Facts
any leak from its oil pipeline. On October 29, 2010, The Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
FPIC admitted that indeed the source of the fuel leak is issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate for a
the WOPL, which was already closed since October 24, proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to
2010, but denied liability by placing blame on the be implemented by RP Energy. Hon. Teodoro Casino
construction activities on the roads surrounding West and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of
 Kalikasan against RP energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon 4) MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO, et. al. Vs. SCOTT
Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground that actual H. SWIFT, et. al. G.R. No. 206510
environmental damage will occur if the power plant
project is implemented and that the respondents failed to FACTS:
comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating
to the issuance of an ECC and amendments thereto. The                 The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine
Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In December
Kalikasan and invalidated the ECC. Both the DENR and 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested
Casino filed an appeal, the former imputing error in diplomatic clearance for the said vessel “to enter and
invalidating the ECC and its amendments, arguing that exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive
the determination of the validity of the ECC as well as at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship
its amendments is beyond the scope of a Petition for a replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” On
Writ of kalikasan; while the latter claim that it is entitled January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic
to a Writ of Kalikasan. Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for
fuel in Okinawa, Japan.
Issues
                On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian
1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar,
on appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan; and Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the
challenged via a writ of Kalikasan northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs,
Ruling about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was
injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of
1. Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on leaking fuel or oil.
appeal on the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan because the
Rules on the Writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the                 Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)allow the and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian
parties to raise, on appeal, questions of fact— and, thus, cause and continue to cause environmental damage of
constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court such magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan,
— because of the extraordinary nature of the Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental,
circumstances surrounding the issuance of a writ Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu,
of kalikasan. and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate
2. Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful
via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is principally ecology.
predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, ISSUES:
which involves environmental damage of a magnitude
that transcends political and territorial boundaries. 1. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.
A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on 2. Whether or not US respondents may be held
alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an liable for damages caused by USS Guardian.
ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or 3. Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit
irregularities, but must also provide a causal link or, at under VFA applies in this case.
least, a reasonable connection between the defects or
irregularities in the issuance of an ECC and the actual or
HELD:
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude
contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition First issue: YES. Petitioners have legal standing
should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed
before the proper forum with due regard to the doctrine                 Locus standi is “a right of appearance in
of exhaustion of administrative remedies. a court of justice on a given question.” Specifically, it is
In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable “a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case
connection was shown or even attempted relative to the where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of result” of the act being challenged, and “calls for more
the perceived defects or irregularities in the issuance of than just a generalized grievance.” However, the rule on
the ECC. standing is a procedural matter which this Court has
relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary
citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public                 In the case of warships, as pointed out by
interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign
the controversy is of transcendental importance, of immunity subject to the following exceptions:
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount
public interest. Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws
and regulations of the coastal State
                In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,
we recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a If any warship does not comply with the laws and
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time regulations of the coastal State concerning passage
in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in through the territorial sea and disregards any request for
the fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal
balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in State may require it to leave the territorial sea
the Constitutionfor it is assumed, like other civil and immediately.
polittcal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist
from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage
transcendental importance with intergenerational caused by a warship or other government ship operated
implications. Such right carries with it the correlative for non-commercial purposes
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for
                On the novel element in the class suit filed by any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the
the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not non-compliance by a warship or other government ship
only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and
the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so regulations of the coastal State concerning passage
in representation of their own and future generations. through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this
Convention or other rules of international law.
Second issue: YES.
Article 32: Immunities of warships and other
 The US respondents were sued in their official capacity government ships operated for non-commercial purposes
as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control
and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew.                 With such exceptions as are contained in
The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this
grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was Convention affects the immunities of warships and other
committed while they were performing official military government ships operated for non-commercial
duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment purposes. A foreign warship’s unauthorized entry
against said officials will require remedial actions and into our internal waters with resulting damage to
appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is marine resources is one situation in which the above
deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle of provisions may apply.
State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction
by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the
and Robling. UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?

                During the deliberations, Senior Associate According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has
Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position that the not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing
conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered policy the US considers itself bound
a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and by customary international rules on the “traditional uses
caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the of the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.
matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US
(UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on its
warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as disagreement with UNCLOS” regime of deep seabed
extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep
creates an exception to this rule in cases where they seabed commonly owned by mankind,” pointing out that
fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the such “has nothing to do with its the US’ acceptance
coastal State regarding passage through the latter’s of customary international rules on navigation.”
internal waters and the territorial sea.
The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS
view that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province
mean that the US will disregard the rights of the of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and
territorial sea. We thus expect the US                 The Court also found  unnecessary at this point
to bear“international responsibility” under Art. 31 in to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
connection with the USS Guardian grounding which indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant
adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is damages which have resulted from the violation of
difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
partner, which has been actively supporting the damages, including the collection of administrative fines
country’s efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that
would shirk from its obligation to compensate the deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the
damage caused by its warship while transiting our same violation of an environmental law.
internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a
Government exercising leadership in international  5) MMDA vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS
affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive OF MANILA BAY
for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect
and preserve the marine environment as provided in Facts:
Article 197 of UNCLOS
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a
Article 197: Cooperation on a global or regional basis complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Imus, Cavite against several government agencies,
States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as among them the petitioners, for the cleanup,
appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay for the
competent international organizations, in formulating cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the same.
and elaborating international rules, standards and
recommended practices and procedures consistent with The complaint alleged that the water quality of
this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable
the marine environment, taking into account standards set by law when the water samples collected
characteristic regional features. from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed
that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the 50,000 to 80,000 most probable number (MPN)/ml when
present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the what DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90 prescribed
said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact
the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the recreational activities, or the "SB" level, is one not
latter’s territorial sea, the flag States shall be exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.
required to leave the territorial sea immediately if
they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal RTC decision:
State, and they will be liable for damages caused by
their warships or any other government vessel
MMDA and other government agency where
operated for non-commercial purposes under Article
ordered to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.
31.
CA decision:
Third issue: NO.
It sustained the decision of the RTC.
                The waiver of State immunity under the VF A
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a Issues:
writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section
17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a (1) Whether the cleaning up of Manila Bay was
person charged with a violation of an environmental law a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.
is to be filed separately.
(2) Whether Sec. 17 and 20 of the Environment
                The Court considered a view that a ruling on Code encompass the clean-up of water pollution in
the application or non-application of criminal general not just specific pollution incidents.
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who
Ruling: to meet the prescribed water quality standards." In fine,
the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not
(1) Yes, the cleaning up of Manila Bay was a conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.
ministerial act which can be compelled by Mandamus.
For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the
*Ministerial duty or act- when the discharge of Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is
the duty requires neither the exercise of official properly applicable to a specific situation in which the
discretion or judgment. pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the
mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned
*A discretionary duty is one that "allows a government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work
person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or for the polluters’ account. Petitioners’ assertion, that
not to perform." they have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila
Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the
Petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as erring polluters do not undertake the containment,
defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As
out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of the
While the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated Environment Code comes into play and the specific
tasks may entail a decision-making process, the duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there
enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the are no pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners,
law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be thus, cannot plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of
compelled by mandamus. PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their
cleanup mandate depends on the happening of a specific
Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option pollution incident. In this regard, what the CA said with
whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152
duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis. is at once valid as it is practical. The appellate court
wrote: "PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive
program of environmental protection and management.
The MMDA’s duty to put up an adequate and
This is better served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general
appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid
application rather than limiting them to specific
disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal
pollution incidents."
systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory
imposition.
Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal
provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up
A perusal of other petitioners’ respective
the bay, they and the men and women representing them
charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws
cannot escape their obligation to future generations of
would yield this conclusion: these government agencies
Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and
are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to
clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a
perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly
betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from
choosing not to perform these duties.
 6) G.R. No. 246209, Abogado, et al. v.
(2) Sec. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
Department of Environment and Natural
encompass the clean-up of water pollution in general not
Resources, et al., May 3, 2019
just specific pollution incidents.
The Supreme Court, in a special En Banc session held
Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the on Friday, issued a writ of kalikasan to protect, preserve,
government agencies concerned ought to confine rehabilitate, and to restore the marine environment in
themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning Scarborough Shoal (also known as Panatag Shoal),
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban Reef (also known as
the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the Mischief Reef). The Court granted the prayer for the
absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water issuance of a writ of kalikasan by petitioners Monico A.
quality "has deteriorated to a degree where its state will Abogado, et al. to prevent violations of Philippine
adversely affect its best usage." This section, to stress, environmental laws in the Philippine Waters and in the
commands concerned government agencies, when Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the above
appropriate, "to take such measures as may be necessary areas.
 arrested by Philippine authorities for engaging in
The petitioners are members of the Kalayaan Palawan dynamite fishing around Scarborough Shoal. It likewise
Farmers and Fisherfolk Association who are members of found that the construction of artificial islands in
the fisherfolk community in the Municipality of Panganiban Reef by Chinese have caused “devastatingly
Kalayaan, Province of Palawan, while the others are and long-lasting damages to the marine environment.
residents of Sitio Kinabukasa, Cawag, Zambales. Named
as respondents are the Department of Environment and 7) NOVAI v. Republic of the Philippines
Natural Resources, represented by Sec. Roy A. Cimatu; G.R. No. 177168
Department of Agriculture, represented by Sec. August 3, 2015
Emmanuel Piñol; Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, represented by National Director Eduardo B. Facts: A Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) issued in Navy
Gongona; Philippine Navy, represented by Flag Officer Officers’ Village Association, Inc (NOVAI)’s name
in Command Vadm Robert Empdrad; Philippine Coast covers a land situated inside the former Fort Andres
Guard, represented by Commandant Admiral Elson E. Bonifacio Military Reservation in Taguig. This property
Hermogino; Philippine National Police, represented by was previously a part of a larger parcel of land which
PNP Chief PDG Oscar Albayalde; PNP Maritime Group, TCT’s under the name of the Republic of the
represented by PCSupt. Rodelio B. Jocson, and Philippines.
Department of Justice, represented by Sec. Menardo I. The then President Garcia issued a Proclamation No.
Guevarra. 423 which reserves for military purposes certain parcels
of the public domain situated in Pasig, Taguig,
Petitioners alleged that the government’s inaction of as Paranaque, Rizal and Pasay City. Thereafter, then
to the activities of the Chinese in the contested areas of President Macapagal issued Proclamation No. 461 which
the West Philippine Sea were in violation of excluded Fort McKinley a certain portion of land
theConvention on International Trade in Endangered situated in the provinces abovementioned and declared
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, the Philippine them as AFP Officers’ Village to be disposed of under
Fisheries Code, and Presidential Decree No. 1586, or the provisions of certain laws. However, this area was
Establishing the Environmental Impact Statement subsequently reserved for veterans’ rehabilitation,
System in the Philippines. Panatag Shoal is located in medicare and training center sites.
the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales, The property was the subject of deed of sale
while Ayungin Shoal and Panganiban Reef are located in between the Republic and NOVAI to which the TCT
the Municipality of Kalayaan, Province of Palawan. The was registered in favour of the latter. The Republic then
petitioners cited the July 12, 2016 ruling of the sought to cancel NOVAI’s title on the ground that the
Permanent Court of Arbitration (Arbitral Tribunal), property was still part of the military reservation thus
which issued in the China Sea Arbitration proceedings inalienable land of the public domain and cannot be the
initiated by the Republic of the Philippines the Arbitral subject of sale. The RTC ruled that the property was
Award finding that the Ayungin Shoal and the alienable and disposable in character. The Court of
Panganiban Reef were within the country’s EEZ. It Appeals reversed RTC’s decision.
found that while Panatag Shoal within 200 nautical miles
from the Philippines’ baseline, it was the subject of a Issue: Whether or not the property covered by TCT
conflicting claim by China and the country, hence, it issued under the name of NOVAI is inalienable land of
cannot categorically be declared as part of EEZ. public domain and cannot be the subject of sale.

The Arbitral Tribunal also found, among others, that Held: Yes, the property remains a part of the public
fishermen from Chinese flagged vessels have engaged in domain that could not have been validly disposed of in
the harvesting of endangered species on a significant NOVAI’s favor. NOVAI failed to discharge its burden
scale and in the harvesting of giant clams in a manner of proving that the property was not intended for public
that is severely destructive of the coral reef ecosystem. or quasi-public use or purpose.
Likewise, the Tribunal found that China’s land The classification and disposition of lands of the
reclamation and construction of artificial islands, public domain are governed by Commonwealth Act
installations, and structures at Mischief Reef has caused (C.A.) No. 141 or the Public Land Act, the country's
severe, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem. primary law on the matter.
Likewise, the Tribunal noted that China has engaged in Under Section 6 of C.A. No. 141, the President of the
gathering corals and clams around Ayungin Shoal, as Republic of the Philippines, upon the recommendation
well as found that Chinese fisherfolk use cyanide and of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
explosives in Panatag Shoal and Ayungin Shoal. It may, from time to time, classify lands of the public
likewise noted several instances when the same were domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral
lands, and transfer these lands from one class to another encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting the said
for purposes of their administration and disposition. parcels of land. Neither did any other person have an
In a limited sense, parcels of land classified as interest therein, legal or equitable, or was in possession
reservations for public or quasi-public uses under thereof.
Section 9 (d) of C.A. No. 141 are still non-alienable and
non-disposable, even though they are, by the general On the scheduled initial hearing, appellees adduced
classification under Section 6, alienable and disposable
pieces of documentary evidence to comply with the
lands of the public domain. By specific declaration
jurisdictional requirements of notices, posting and
under Section 88, in relation with Section 8, these lands
classified as reservations are non-alienable and non- publication. Appellee Angeline testified on the
disposable. continuous, open, public and exclusive possession of the
As provided in Article 420 of Civil Code, lands in dispute.
“property of the public dominion as those which are
intended for public use or, while not intended for public Trial on the merits ensued. In a Decision7 dated 6
use, belong to the State and are intended for some public November 2007, the court a quo granted appellees'
service”. In this case, the property was classified as application for registration. Unflinching, the Office of
military reservation thus, remained to be property of the the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration
public dominion until withdrawn from the public use for but failed to attain favorable relief as its Motion was
which they have been reserved, by act of Congress or by denied by the court a quo in its Order dated 11
proclamation of the President. Since there was no September 2008. On even date, the court a quo rendered
positive act from the government, the property had to
the assailed Amended Decision finding appellees to have
retain its inalienable and non-disposable character. It
cannot therefore, be subject of sale otherwise, the sale is the registrable title over the subject properties.
void for being contrary to law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the herein applicants are entitled to the
 8) Republc of PH vs Dayaoen confirmation of their titles to the lots subject of their
GR No 200773 present application
July 8, 2015
Ruling:
Facts: NO, Applicants are not entitled. While respondents have
Appellees Angeline Dayaoen (Angeline), Agustina complied with most of the requirements in connection
Taule (Agustina) and Lawana Batcagan4 (Lawana) filed with their application for registration, they have not
an Application for Registration5 of three parcels of land sufficiently shown that the property applied for is
located in Barangay Tabangaoen, La Trinidad, Benguet, alienable and disposable at the time their application for
described as Lots 1, 6 and 7, each with an area of 994 registration was filed. The Court is left with no
square meters, 390 sq. m., and 250 sq. m. respectively, alternative but to deny their application for registration.
or, a total of 1,634 sq. m. under Survey Plan. To be sure, the nation's interests will be best served by a
The subject parcels of land were originally owned and strict adherence to the provisions of the land registration
possessed since pre-war time by Antonio Pablo laws.
(Antonio), the grandfather of Dado Pablo (Dado),
husband of appellee Angeline. In 1963, Antonio gave the Even if the tax declaration of applicant Angeline
parcels of land in question to appellee Angeline and Dayaoen and religious payment of real property taxes
Dado as a wedding gift. From that time on, they lend strong corroboration to the evidence of the
continuously occupied and possessed the properties. In applicants. As well as though it was established that
1976 and 1977, appellee Angeline sold Lots 6 and 7 to applicant Angeline Dayaoen and her predecessor
co-appellees Agustina and Lawana, pursuant to Antonio Pablo have been in actual and continuous
an Affidavit of Quitclaim and a Deed of Absolute Sale possession of the parcel of land embracing the lots
of a Portion of Unregistered Land, respectively. Since 12 subject of the present application.
June 1945, appellees and their predecessor-in-interest
have been in public, open, exclusive, uninterrupted and However, mere notations appearing in survey plans are
continuous possession thereof in the concept of an inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable and
owner. Appellees declared the questioned properties for disposable character. These notations, at the very least,
taxation purposes. There was no mortgage or only establish that the land subject of the application for
registration falls within the approved alienable and First Part
disposable area per verification through survey by the
proper government office. The applicant, however, must Reynosa Valte filed a free patent application on July 6,
also present a copy of the original classification of the 1978 for a 7.2253 hectare parcel of land in San Isidro,
land into alienable and disposable land, as declared by Lupao, Nueva Ecija. The application listed Procopio
the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the President. Vallega and Pedro Mendoza as witnesses who would
testify to the truth of the allegations in Valte’s
application. Director of Lands issued Notice of
The survey plan is not a proof the President or the
Application entertaining claims over alleged parcel of
DENR Secretary declaring the public land as alienable land on or before August 7, 1978. Any claim not so filed
and disposable. For failure to present incontrovertible will be forever barred. September 14, 1978, the Land
evidence that Lot No. 4457 has been reclassified as Investigator certified that the land was first occupied and
alienable and disposable land of the public domain cultivated by Francis Maglaya, Nemesio Jacala and
though a positive act of the Executive Department, the Laureano Parińas, who sold their rights to the portions
spouses Fortuna's claim of title through a public land adjudicated to spouses Policarpio Valte and Miguela
grant under the PLA should be denied. dela Fuente, who took possession over the land right
after. Fuente took responsibility of the land upon death
Issue #2: Who bears the burden of proof? of her husband and as time progressed and she aged, she
Ruling: transferred all rights to their only daughter, herein
Well settled is the rule that the burden of proof in land respondent. Bureau of Lands approved application and
issued Free Patent No. 586435 on December 28, 1978.
registration cases is incumbent on the applicant who
January 31, 1979, the Cabanatuan City of Registry of
must show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee Deeds issued OCT No. P-10119.
simple of the land being applied for. x x x The applicant
must present specific acts of ownership to substantiate December 6, 1982, petitioners filed protest against
the claim and cannot just offer general statements which Valte’s application claiming that such was obtained by
are more conclusion of law than factual evidence of means of fraud, misrepresentation and connivance.
possession. Simply put, facts constituting possession Stating that Valte willfully and fraudulently suppressed
must be duly established by competent evidence, x x x and omitted the fact that the land was in actual
possession of petitioners, also, improvements such as
However, given the foregoing facts, as borne out by rice paddies and pilapiles were already existing long
competent, reliable, concrete, and undisputed evidence, before the time the application of Valte was filed. DENR
the Court cannot conceive of any better proof of conducted ocular investigation. Barangay officials, the
Barangay Captain and two witnesses from San Isidro
applicants' adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful,
claimed that they know every resident and that they do
uninterrupted and exclusive possession and occupation
not know Valte. The two witnesses stated that petitioners
in concept of owners. The Court finds and concludes that were the only occupants of the land since 1929.
the applicants have abundantly shown the specific acts
that would show such nature of their possession. In view Based on the foregoing facts and evidences produced,
of the totality of facts obtaining in evidence on record, the DENR ruled on January 20, 1994 in favor of
the applicants had ably complied with the burden of Mendoza and Gonzales directing the REVESION of the
proof required of them by law. The Court holds that the area and petitioners are ADJUDGED to have the
established facts are sufficient proof to overcome the preferential right over the disputed land.
presumption that the lots sought to be registered form
part of the; public domain. Hence, they have fully Second Part
discharged to the satisfaction of the Court their burden in
this proceeding. On March 20, 1994, Valte appeared before the Office of
the President raising violation of due process since the
investigation of the DENR was conducted ex parte
 9) PEDRO MENDOZA [DECEASED]
without giving her the opportunity to be heard. In her
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS FEDERICO
favor, a formal hearing was to be conducted and a
MENDOZA AND DELFIN MENDOZA,
thorough investigation was to take place regarding the
AND JOSE GONZALES, Petitioners V.
case. Petitioners reiterated their claim (evidence was
REYNOSA VALTE, Respondent G.R. No.
grounded mostly on the DENR investigation results,
172961, September 07, 2015
Sinumpang Salaysay of the two witnesses and claims of
Barangay Officials of San Isidro). Valte countered that
Facts:
her father bought the land in 1941 and her mother ceded review of the admissibility and credibility of documents.
the land to her in 1978. She then processed titling The existence or non-existence of fraud in an application
relying on the assurance of her administrator that the for free patent depends on the finding of the fact in so far
petitioners had no preferential right over the land. Valte as the presence of its requirements. Mendoza admitted
presented her free patent application and the Joint against his own interest when he stated in his Joint
Affidavit of Vallega and Mendoza which recognized her Affidavit that Valte has continuously occupied and
exclusive claim and possession over the land. On March cultivated the land.
11, 1999, the DENR Secretary declared petitioners as
mere tenants and dismissed their claims for lack of Second Issue: Resolving questions of fact is a function
merit. of the lower courts. This court is not a trier of facts and
we are not duty bound to re-examine evidence already
Third considered by the lower courts. Factual findings by the
CA, when supported by conclusive evidence, are
Part On April 26, 2000, the Office of the President generally conclusive and binding on the parties and will
reversed the decision on March 11, 1999 and reinstated no longer be reviewed by this court. In addition. . . The
the January 20, 1994 decision. petitioners failed to prove that respondent employed
fraud on her free patent application. Petitioners did not
Fourth explain why they did not file the proper petition before
the trial court or within one-year period which has
Part On September 8, 2000, the CA dismissed Valte’s prescribed.
petition for review due to several defects, such as
incomplete certification of non-forum shopping, failure
to attach registry receipts in the affidavit of service, and
lack of certified true copies of the material portions of
the record referred to in the petition. It also denied
reconsideration which prompted Valte to file a Petition
for Certiorari before the SC. The SC denied the petition
due to late filing, lack of certification against forum
shopping and failure to sufficiently show that the CA
committed reversible error. However, the SC reinstated
Valte’s petition for reconsideration. The SC on June 29,
2004 assailed the CA’s resolution on Sept. 8, 2000 and
Jan. 12, 2001 to be set aside and that the case be
remanded to the CA due to merits considered.

Fifth

Part On December 28, 2005, the CA reversed the

decision of the Office of the President and reinstated the
March 11, 1999 decision. ~Hence this petition. Issues:
1.) WON this case falls within the exceptions that allow
the examination of questions of fact before this court. 2.)
WON the CA erred in reversing the Office of the
President’s decision that found fraud and
misrepresentations by Valte in her free patent
application.

Ruling: WE DENY THE PETITION.

First Issue: A petition for review filed under Rule 45

may raise only QUESTIONS OF LAW. The factual
findings of the CA are generally conclusive and binding
on the parties and are no longer reviewable unless the
case falls under the recognized exceptions. The identity
of the land in controversy involves a factual question.
This requires a delineation of actual boundaries and a