8/11/2019 NATRS cases no. 11 and 12.docx

1/3

11] G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995

MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,vs.

HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary of Environment and NaturalResources, and JOEL D. MUYCO, Director of Mines and Geosciences

Bureau, respondents.

Facts :

Former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No.s 211 and 279 in

the exercise of her legislative powers. EO No. 211 prescribes the interim procedures in

the processing and approval of applications for the exploration, development and

utilization of minerals pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution while

EO No. 279 authorizes the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint-venture,co-production, or production- sharing agreements for the exploration, development,

and utilization of mineral resources.

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of the two Administrative Orders issued

by then Sec. of DENR Fulgencio Factoran Jr. pursuant to the above stated executive

orders. Administrative Order no. 57 declares that all mining leases or agreements

which were granted after the effectively of the 1987 Constitution shall be converted into

production-sharing agreements within 1 year from the effectivity of these guidelines.

Administrative Order no. 82 on the other hand, provides that failure to submit Letter of

Intent and Mineral Production-Sharing Agreement within 2 years from the effectivity of

the Department Administrative Order No. 57 shall cause the abandonment of the

mining, quarry, and sand and gravel claims.

They also contend that the Administrative order violates their vested rights on

non-impairment clause of the Constitution as it automatically converts their mining

leases/agreements into production-sharing agreements. Furthermore, the DENR acted

in excess of its jurisdiction and are inconsistent with the EOs.

Issue: Whether or not the Administrative orders issued by the DENR are valid?

Ruling:

Yes. They are valid.

Due to the fact that the Executive Order no. 279 which was issued by Former

pres. Aquino, in effect, gave the Secretary of the DENR the authority or power to

8/11/2019 NATRS cases no. 11 and 12.docx

2/3

conclude joint venture, co-production or production sharing agreements for the

exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources. This Administrative

orders are directed to accomplish the purpose of the law under which they were issued

and were intended to secure the paramount interest of the public, their economic

growth and welfare. Moreover, they were part of the legitimate exercise of the police

power of the state. The non-impairment clause guaranteed by our constitution should

not prevail over the legitimate exercise of police power.

Discourse:

The adoption of the concept ofjura regaliathat all natural resources are owned

by the State embodied in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, as well as the

recognition of the importance of the country's natural resources, not only for national

economic development, but also for its security and national

defense,ushered in the adoption of the constitutional policy of "full control and

supervision by the State" in the exploration, development and utilization of the

country's natural resources. The options open to the State are through direct

undertaking or by entering into co-production, joint venture; or production-sharing

agreements, or by entering into agreement with foreign-owned corporations for large-

scale exploration, development and utilization.

12] G.R. No. L-50464 January 29, 1990

SUNBEAM CONVENIENCE FOODS INC., CORAL BEACH DEVELOPMENT CORP.,and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATAAN, petitioners,

vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:

Sunbeam Convenience Foods, Inc. (SUNBEAM) and Coral Beach DevelopmentCorporation (CORAL BEACH) are recipients of a Sales Patent issued by the Directorof Lands located in Mariveles, Bataan. Subsequently, an OCT was issued in theirfavor. However, the Solicitor General filed an action for reversion on the ground thatthe lots were forest lands, thus, inalienable. The then CFI (now RTC) of Bataandismissed the case on the ground that its had no jurisdiction over the matter. It waselevated to the CA, and then it ruled in favour of the Solicitor General.

8/11/2019 NATRS cases no. 11 and 12.docx

3/3

Issue: Whether or not the subject property is alienable

Ruling:

The decision of the CA is affirmed. Land remains unclassified land until it isreleased therefrom and rendered open to disposition.

Our adherence to the Regalian doctrine subjects all agricultural, timber, andmineral lands to the dominion of the State. Thus, before any land may be reclassifiedfrom the forest group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural orother purposes, there must be a positive act from the government. Even rules on theconfirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified asforest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form partof the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.

The mere fact that a title was issued by the Director of Lands does not confer anyvalidity on such title if the property covered by the title or patent is part of the public

forest. The only way to resolve this question of fact as to the classification of the land isby remanding the case to the lower court for a full- dress trial on the issues involved.

Discourse:

In the case of SUNBEAM CONVENIENCE FOODS INC., CORAL BEACHDEVELOPMENT CORP vs CA, it was enhanced, this is becase the Regalian Doctrinesubjects all agricultural, timber and mineral lands to the dominion of the state. And so,before a land may be reclassified into alienable and disposable land for agriculturalpurposes, there must be a positive act from the government