ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLASS

MICHAEL ANGELO L. MEMORACION STUDENT NUMBER: 0217-0297

I. What are the natural resources of the state?

Answer: As mentioned in Article 12 Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the

Cite a specific provision in the 1987 Philippine Constitution that intents to give preference to
marginalized Filipino citizens in the enjoyment of natural resources.

Answer: Article 13 Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: “The State shall,
by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till
or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State
shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives
for voluntary land-sharing.

Furthermore, Article 13 Section 6 states “The State shall apply the principles of agrarian
reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition
or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under
lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of
small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.”

II. What are the modes in the exploitation, development and utilization of natural resources,
Explain briefly.

Answer: Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State, and that a.) the State may directly undertake such activities, or
b.) may enter into co-production,c.) joint venture, or d.) production-sharing agreements
with Filipino citizens, or corporations, or associations at least sixty per centum (60%) of
whose capital is owned by such citizens, which agreements may be for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under
such terms and conditions as may be provided by law.

Jose is the grandson of Pedro, now deceased. During Pedro’s lifetime, he was in open
continuous and exclusive possession of a parcel of land in Infanta, Quezon since June 12,
 1945. Said land is planted mainly with pineapples and other root crops. Jose, as successor-in-
interest now asks for your opinion if he can legally acquire the title to the land under Public
Land Act. Your opinion.

Answer: The applicable provision of law in the given case in relation to Public Land Act
is found under Section 14 (1), Chapter III of Presidential Decree (PD) 1529 or the
“Property Registration Decree.” The said law provides that: “The following persons may
file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land,
whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: “(1) Those who by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
xxx” Thus, it is necessary for the applicant for land registration to prove that he has
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
alienable and disposable land of the public domain since June 12, 1945. The requirement
of possession of occupation of the land has been expounded by the court in the case of
Republic of the Philippines vs Rovency Realty and Development Corp. (GR 190817, Jan.
10, 2018), “An applicant for land registration must exhibit that it and its predecessors-
in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or
earlier. It has been held that possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent,
notorious, and not clandestine; it is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken, and not
intermittent or occasional; it is exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit;
and notorious when it is so conspicuous, that it is generally known and talked of by the
public or the people in the neighborhood.

“In Republic vs Remman Enterprises Inc., the Court held that for purposes of land
registration under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, proof of specific acts of ownership must be
presented to substantiate the claim of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the land subject of the application. Applicants for land
registration cannot just offer general statements, which are mere conclusions of law
rather than factual evidence of possession. Actual possession is in the manifestation of
acts of dominion over it of such nature as a party would actually exercise over his own
property.”

III. Agus River originates from the ancestral domain of the Dumagat tribe in Bulacan. The water
then flows into the Angat Dam which is located outside the delineated boundary of the
Dumagat’s ancestral domain. Are the Dumagat’s entitled royalty for the utilization of the water
resources under the IPRA. Your opinion.

Answer: Yes, the Dumagats are entitled for royalty for the utilization of the water
resources under IPRA. Section 5 of IPRA provides for the indigenous concept of
ownership which states that “Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that
ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of
their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that
ancestral domains are the ICC’s/IP’s private but community property which belongs to
all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers
 sustainable traditional resource rights.” Section 7a of IPRA also covers the IPs right of
ownership which states:” The right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of water
traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and
fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains.”
Although Angat Dam is outside the delineated boundary, the body of water is something
that they consider sacred and was a traditional hunting and fishing ground.

IV. Differentiate large-scale mining operation from small-scale mining operation.

Answer: Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 7942) Section 3 Paragraph AF defines
mining as “mining activities involving exploration, feasibility, development, utilization,
and processing”. This means large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
mineral resources in the Philippines. According to Section 3 of Small-Scale Mining Act
of 1991 (R.A No. 7076), "small-scale mining" refers to mining activities which rely heavily
on manual labor using simple implement and methods and do not use explosives or
heavy mining equipment.

The LLDA issued an order imposing the payment of fine as a penalty against a restaurant
owner operating in the City of Manila, after due notice and hearing, and finding said restaurant
responsible for discharging polluted wastewater. Does the LLDA have the power to impose
fine?

Answer: Yes, LLDA has the power to impose fine against the restaurant owner in the
City of Manila. In a similar case decided by the supreme Court (Pacific Steam Laundry
vs LLDA), it was held that LLDA is granted additional powers and functions to effectively
perform its role and to enlarge its prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and
enforcement. One of which is to exercise such powers and perform such other functions
necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities which is to impose fines.

In Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, the Court upheld the power
of LLDA to issue an ex-parte cease and desist order even if such power is not expressly
conferred by law, holding that an administrative agency has also such powers as are
necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers. The Court ruled that LLDA, in
the exercise of its express powers under its charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, has the implied authority
to issue a "cease and desist order." In the same manner, we hold that the LLDA has the
power to impose fines in the exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region. City of Manila is within
the jurisdiction of LLDA.

V. Multiple Choice

1. a

2. d

3. b

4. c

5. d
6. a

7. c 39. b

8. b 40. d

9. b

10. c

11. c

12. c

13. a

14. a

15. c

16. c

17. a

18. a

19. b

20. b

21. b

22. b

23. b

24. a

25. a

26. c

27. c

28. c

29. b

30. b

31. b

32. c

33. d

34. d

35. c

36. c

37. d
38. d