G.R. No.

110249 August 21, 1997 ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO, ROMUALDO TANO, TEOCENES MIDELLO, ANGEL DE MESA, EULOGIO TREMOCHA, FELIPE ONGONION, JR., ANDRES LINIJAN, ROBERT LIM, VIRGINIA LIM, FELIMON DE MESA, GENEROSO ARAGON, TEODORICO ANDRE, ROMULO DEL ROSARIO, CHOLITO ANDRE, ERICK MONTANO, ANDRES OLIVA, VITTORIO SALVADOR, LEOPOLDO ARAGON, RAFAEL RIBA, ALEJANDRO LEONILA, JOSE DAMACINTO, RAMIRO MANAEG, RUBEN MARGATE, ROBERTO REYES, DANILO PANGARUTAN, NOE GOLPAN, ESTANISLAO ROMERO, NICANOR DOMINGO, ROLDAN TABANG, ADRIANO TABANG, FREDDIE SACAMAY, MIGUEL TRIMOCHA, PACENCIO LABABIT, PABLO H. OMPAD, CELESTINO A. ABANO, ALLAN ALMODAI, BILLY D. BARTOLAY, ALBINO D. LIQUE, MECHOR J. LAYSON, MELANIE AMANTE, CLARO E. YATOC, MERGELDO B. BALDEO, EDGAR M. ALMASETA, JOSELITO MANAEG, LIBERATO ANDRADA, JR., ROBERTO BERRY, RONALD VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO VALMORIA, WILFREDO MENDOZA, NAPOLEON BABANGGA, ROBERTO TADEPA, RUBEN ASINGUA, SILVERIO GABO, JERRY ROMERO, DAVID PANGGARUTAN, DANIEL PANGGARUTAN, ROMEO AGAWIN, FERNANDO EQUIZ, DITO LEQUIZ, RONILO MODERABLE, BENEDICTO TORRES, ROSITO A. VALDEZ, CRESENCIO A. SAYANG, NICOMEDES S. ACOSTA, ERENEO A. SEGARINO, JR., WILFREDO A. RAUTO, DIOSDADO A. ACOSTA, BONIFACIO G. SISMO, TACIO ALUBA, DANIEL B. BATERZAL, ELISEO YBAEZ, DIOSDADO E. HANCHIC, EDDIE ESCALICAS, ELEAZAR B. BATERZAL, DOMINADOR HALICHIC, ROOSEVELT RISMO-AN, ROBERT C. MERCADER, TIRSO ARESGADO, DANIEL CHAVEZ, DANILO CHAVEZ, VICTOR VILLAROEL, ERNESTO C. YBAEZ, ARMANDO T. SANTILLAN, RUDY S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO, NESTOR SALANGRON, ALBERTO SALANGRON, ROGER L. ROXAS, FRANCISCO T. ANTICANO, PASTOR SALANGRON, BIENVENIDO SANTILLAN, GILBUENA LADDY, FIDEL BENJAMIN, JOVELITO BELGANO, HONEY PARIOL, ANTONIO SALANGRON, NICASIO SALANGRON, & AIRLINE SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN, petitioners, vs. HON. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, MEMBERS OF SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PALAWAN, namely, VICE-GOVERNOR JOEL T. REYES, JOSE D. ZABALA, ROSALINO R. ACOSTA, JOSELITO A. CADLAON, ANDRES R. BAACO, NELSON P. PENEYRA, CIPRIANO C. BARROMA, CLARO E. ORDINARIO, ERNESTO A. LLACUNA, RODOLFO C. FLORDELIZA, GILBERT S. BAACO, WINSTON G. ARZAGA, NAPOLEON F. ORDONEZ and GIL P. ACOSTA, CITY MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN, MEMBERS OF SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA, ALL MEMBERS OF BANTAY DAGAT, MEMBERS OF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE OF PALAWAN, PROVINCIAL AND CITY PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN and PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, and ALL JUDGES OF PALAWAN, REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL AND METROPOLITAN,respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: Petitioners caption their petition as one for "Certiorari, Injunction With Preliminary and Mandatory Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order" and pray that this Court: (1) declare as unconstitutional: (a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992, of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa; (b) Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, dated 22 January 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of Puerto Princesa City; and (c) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, dated 19 February 1993, of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan; (2) enjoin the enforcement thereof; and (3) restrain respondents Provincial and City Prosecutors of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and Judges of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts 1 and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Palawan from assuming jurisdiction over and hearing cases concerning the violation of the Ordinances and of the Office Order.

More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The following is petitioners' summary of the factual antecedents giving rise to the petition: 1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF", the full text of which reads as follows: Sec. 1. Title of the Ordinance. This Ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF. Sec. 2. Purpose, Scope and Coverage. To effectively free our City Sea Waters from Cyanide and other Obnoxious substance[s], and shall cover all persons and/or entities operating within and outside the City of Puerto Princesa who is are (sic) directly or indirectly in the business or shipment of live fish and lobster outside the City. Sec. 3. Definition of terms. For purpose of this Ordinance the following are hereby defined: A. SEA BASS A kind of fish under the family of Centropomidae, better known as APAHAP; B. CATFISH A kind of fish under the family of Plotosidae, better known as HITO-HITO; C. MUDFISH A kind of fish under the family of Orphicaphalisae better known as DALAG; D. ALL LIVE FISH All alive, breathing not necessarily moving of all specie[s] use[d] for food and for aquarium purposes. E. LIVE LOBSTER Several relatively, large marine crusteceans [sic] of the genus Homarus that are alive and breathing not necessarily moving. Sec. 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business enterprise or company to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any point of destination either via aircraft or seacraft of any live fish and lobster except SEA BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH, AND MILKFISH FRIES.

Sec. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person/s and or business entity violating this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than P5,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than twelve (12) months, cancellation of their permit to do business in the City of Puerto Princesa or all of the herein stated penalties, upon the discretion of the court. Sec. 6. If the owner and/or operator of the establishment found violating the provisions of this ordinance is a corporation or a partnership, the penalty prescribed in Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon its president and/or General Manager or Managing Partner and/or Manager, as the case maybe [sic]. Sec. 7. Any existing ordinance or any provision of any ordinance inconsistent to [sic] this ordinance is deemed repealed. Sec. 8. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1993. SO ORDAINED. xxx xxx xxx 2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993 dated January 22, 1993 which reads as follows: In the interest of public service and for purposes of City Ordinance No. PD 426-14-74, otherwise known as "AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON ENGAGED OR INTENDING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, OCCUPATION, CALLING OR PROFESSION OR HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION ANY OF THE ARTICLES FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE HAD, TO OBTAIN FIRST A MAYOR'S PERMIT" and "City Ordinance No. 15-92, AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998, you are hereby authorized and directed to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from the Puerto Princesa Airport, Puerto Princesa Wharf or at any port within the jurisdiction of the City to any point of destinations [sic] either via aircraft or seacraft. The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper possessed the required Mayor's Permit issued by this Office and the shipment is covered by invoice or clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and as to compliance with all other existing rules and regulations on the matter. Any cargo containing live fish and lobster without the required documents as stated herein must be held for proper disposition. In the pursuit of this Order, you are hereby authorized to coordinate with the PAL Manager, the PPA Manager, the local PNP Station and other offices concerned for the needed support and cooperation. Further, that the usual courtesy and diplomacy must be observed at all times in the conduct of the inspection. Please be guided accordingly.

xxx xxx xxx 3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Provincial Government of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 entitled: "A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING, GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF LIVE MARINE CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS, TO WIT: FAMILY: SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS FASCIATUS (SUNO). CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS(PANTHER OR SENORITA), LOBSTER BELOW 200 GRAMS AND SPAWNING, TRIDACNA GIGAS(TAKLOBO), PINCTADA MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER PEARL, OYSTERS, GIANT CLAMS AND OTHER SPECIES), PENAEUS MONODON (TIGER PRAWN-BREEDER SIZE OR MOTHER), EPINEPHELUS SUILLUS (LOBA OR GREEN GROUPER) AND FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL AQUARIUM FISHES) FOR A PERIOD FIVE (5) YEARS IN AND COMING FROM PALAWAN WATERS", the full text of which reads as follows: WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches [sic] and studies disclose that only five (5) percent of the corals of our province remain to be in excellent condition as [a] habitat of marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms; WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and devastation of the corals of our province were principally due to illegal fishing activities like dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide fishing, use of other obnoxious substances and other related activities; WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and preserve the existence of the remaining excellent corals and allow the devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate themselves into vitality within the span of five (5) years; WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of the [sic] R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties [upon] acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing, among others. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Kagawad Nelson P. Peneyra and upon unanimous decision of all the members present; Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, to approve Resolution No. 33, Series of 1993 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and to enact Ordinance No. 2 for the purpose, to wit: ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 1993 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IN SESSION ASSEMBLED: Sec. 1. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as an "Ordinance Prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms, to wit: 1. Family: Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus (Suno) 3. Cromileptes altivelis (Panther or Senorita), lobster below 200 grams and spawning), 4. Tridacna Gigas

(Taklobo), 5. Pinctada Margaretefera (Mother Pearl, Oysters, Giant Clams and other species), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger Prawn-breeder size or mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green Grouper) and 8. Family: Balistidae (T[r]opical Aquarium Fishes) for a period of five (5) years in and coming from Palawan Waters. Sec. II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 1. Sec. 2-A (Rep. Act 7160). It is hereby declared, the policy of the state that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for [a] more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources. 2. Sec. 5-A (R.A. 7160). Any provision on a power of [a] local Government Unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower government units. "Any fair and reasonable doubts as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the Local Government Unit concerned." 3. Sec. 5-C (R.A. 7160). The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community. 4. Sec. 16 (R.A. 7160). General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance; and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Sec. III. DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Province of Palawan to protect and conserve the marine resources of Palawan not only for the greatest good of the majority of the present generation but with [the] proper perspective and consideration of [sic] their prosperity, and to attain this end, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan henceforth declares that is (sic) shall be unlawful for any person or any business entity to engage in catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms as enumerated in Section 1 hereof in and coming out of Palawan Waters for a period of five (5) years; Sec. IV. PENALTY CLAUSE. Any person and/or business entity violating this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine Currency, and/or imprisonment of six (6) months to twelve (12) months and confiscation and forfeiture of paraphernalias [sic] and equipment in favor of the government at the discretion of the Court;

Sec. V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. If for any reason, a Section or provision of this Ordinance shall be held as unconditional [sic] or invalid, it shall not affect the other provisions hereof. Sec. VI. REPEALING CLAUSE. Any existing Ordinance or a provision of any ordinance inconsistent herewith is deemed modified, amended or repealed. Sec. VII. EFFECTIVITY This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its publication. SO ORDAINED. xxx xxx xxx 4. The respondents implemented the said ordinances, Annexes "A" and "C" hereof thereby depriving all the fishermen of the whole province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa of their only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline Shippers Association of Palawan and other marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade; 5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe Ongonion, Jr. were even charged criminally under criminal case no. 93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay, an original carbon copy of the criminal complaint dated April 12, 1993 is hereto attached as Annex "D"; while xerox copies are attached as Annex "D" to the copies of the petition; 6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, on the other hand, were charged by the respondent PNP with the respondent City Prosecutor of Puerto Princess City, a xerox copy of the complaint is hereto attached as Annex "E"; Without seeking redress from the concerned local government units, prosecutor's office and courts, petitioners directly invoked our original jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June 1993. In sum, petitioners contend that: First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor condition under which the Mayor's permit could be granted or denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to determine whether or not to issue the permit. Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan "altogether prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, buying, selling and shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms, without any distinction whether it was caught or gathered through lawful fishing method," the Ordinance took away the right of petitioners-fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar as petitioners-members of Airline Shippers Association are concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their vocation and entering "into contracts which are proper, necessary, and essential to carry out their business endeavors to a successful conclusion."

Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is null and void, the criminal cases based thereon against petitioners Tano and the others have to be dismissed. In the Resolution of 15 June 1993 we required respondents to comment on the petition, and furnished the Office of the Solicitor General with a copy thereof. In their comment filed on 13 August 1993, public respondents Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial Government's power under the general welfare clause (Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 [hereafter, LGC]), and its specific power to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing under Section 447 (a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a) (1) (vi), and Section 468 (a) (1) (vi), of the LGC. They claimed that in the exercise of such powers, the Province of Palawan had "the right and responsibility . . . to insure that the remaining coral reefs, where fish dwells [sic], within its territory remain healthy for the future generation." The Ordinance, they further asserted, covered only live marine coral dwelling aquatic organismswhich were enumerated in the ordinance and excluded other kinds of live marine aquatic organisms not dwelling in coral reefs; besides the prohibition was for only five (5) years to protect and preserve the pristine coral and allow those damaged to regenerate. Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there was no violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. As to the former, public hearings were conducted before the enactment of the Ordinance which, undoubtedly, had a lawful purpose and employed reasonable means; while as to the latter, a substantial distinction existed "between a fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of selling it live, and a fisherman who catches live fish with no intention at all of selling it live," i.e., "the former uses sodium cyanide while the latter does not." Further, the Ordinance applied equally to all those belonging to one class. On 25 October 1993 petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, claiming that despite the pendency of this case, Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan was bent on proceeding with Criminal Case No. 11223 against petitioners Danilo Tano, Alfredo Tano, Eulogio Tremocha, Romualdo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Andres Linijan and Angel de Mesa for violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan. Acting on said plea, we issued on 11 November 1993 a temporary restraining order directing Judge Angel Miclat of said court to cease and desist from proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial of Criminal Case No. 11223. On 12 July 1994, we excused the Office of the Solicitor General from filing a comment, considering that as claimed by said office in its Manifestation of 28 June 1994, respondents were already represented by counsel. The rest of the respondents did not file any comment on the petition. In the resolution of 15 September 1994, we resolved to consider the comment on the petition as the Answer, gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. 2 On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on their behalf. But in light of the latter's motion of 9 July 1997 for an extension of time to file the comment which would only result in further delay, we dispensed with said comment.

After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolved to dismiss this petition for want of merit, and on 22 July 1997, assigned it to the ponente to write the opinion of the Court. I There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is composed of Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Danilo Tano, Romualdo Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Andres Linijan, and Felimon de Mesa, who were criminally charged with violating Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal Case No. 93-05-C of the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Palawan; 3 and Robert Lim and Virginia Lim who were charged with violating City Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa. 4 All of them, with the exception of Teocenes Midello, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Felimon de Mesa, Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, are likewise the accused in Criminal Case No. 11223 for the violation of Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, pending before Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan. 5 The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the petitioners numbering seventy-seven (77), all of whom, except the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan an alleged private association of several marine merchants are natural persons who claim to be fishermen. The primary interest of the first set of petitioners is, of course, to prevent the prosecution, trial and determination of the criminal cases until the constitutionality or legality of the Ordinances they allegedly violated shall have been resolved. The second set of petitioners merely claim that being fishermen or marine merchants, they would be adversely affected by the ordinance's. As to the first set of petitioners, this special civil for certiorari must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting to a lack of cause of action. There is no showing that said petitioners, as the accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash the informations therein and that the same were denied. The ground available for such motions is that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense because the ordinances in question are unconstitutional. 6 It cannot then be said that the lower courts acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion to justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition. It must further be stressed that even if petitioners did file motions to quash, the denial thereof would not forthwith give rise to a cause of action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is that where a motion to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not certiorari, but for the party aggrieved thereby to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said motion, and if, after trial on the merits an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. 7 And, even where in an exceptional circumstance such denial may be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari, a motion for reconsideration must have to be filed to allow the court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors, unless such motion may be dispensed with because of existing exceptional circumstances. 8 Finally, even if a motion for reconsideration has been filed and denied, the remedy under Rule 65 is still unavailable absent any showing of the grounds provided for in Section 1 thereof. 9 For obvious reasons, the petition at bar does not, and could not have, alleged any of such grounds. As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is obviously one for DECLARATORY RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration that the Ordinances in question are a "nullity . . . for being unconstitutional." 10 As such, their petition must likewise fail, as this Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved, 11 it being settled that the Court merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over such petitions. 12

II Even granting arguendo that the first set of petitioners have a cause of action ripe for the extraordinary writ ofcertiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special and important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance has been adduced why direct recourse to us should be allowed. While we have concurrent jurisdiction with Regional Trial courts and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, so we held in People v. Cuaresma. 13 This concurrence of jurisdiction is not . . . to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket. . . . The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and to enjoin strict adherence thereto in the light of what it perceives to be a growing tendency on the part of litigants and lawyers to have their applications for the so-called extraordinary writs, and sometimes even their appeals, passed upon and adjudicated directly and immediately by the highest tribunal of the land. . . . In Santiago v. Vasquez, 14 this Court forcefully expressed that the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court, but also because of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We reiterated "the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its] primary jurisdiction." III Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the first set of petitioners, we opt to resolve this case on its merits considering that the lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is about to end. Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa is effective only up to 1 January 1998, while Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan, enacted on 19 February 1993, is effective for only five (5) years. Besides, these Ordinances were undoubtedly enacted in the exercise of powers under the new LGC relative to the protection and preservation of the environment and are thus novel and of paramount importance. No further delay then may be allowed in the resolution of the issues raised. It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. 15 To overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and

unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In short, the conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. 16 Where doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain. 17 After a scrutiny of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions of the Constitution petitioners claim to have been violated, we find petitioners' contentions baseless and so hold that the former do not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and applicable laws. Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7, Article XIII of the Constitution as having been transgressed by the Ordinances. The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads: Sec. 2. . . . The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide: Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. In their petition, petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is self-described as "a private association composed of Marine Merchants;" petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as "merchants;" while the rest of the petitioners claim to be "fishermen," without any qualification, however, as to their status. Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition of the terms "subsistence" or "marginal" fishermen, 18 they should be construed in their general and ordinary sense. A marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover the cost of gathering the fish, 19 while a subsistence fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum for his livelihood. 20 Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No.

7160) defines a marginal farmer or fisherman as "an individual engaged in subsistence farming or fishing which shall be limited to the sale, barter or exchange of agricultural or marine products produced by himself and his immediate family." It bears repeating that nothing in the record supports a finding that any petitioner falls within these definitions. Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of the State to protect the nation's marine wealth. What the provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law, cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. Our survey of the statute books reveals that the only provision of law which speaks of a preferential right of marginal fishermen is Section 149 of the LGC, which pertinently provides: Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. . . . (b) The sangguniang bayan may: (1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the municipal waters, as determined by it: Provided, however, That duly registered organizations and cooperatives of marginal fishermen shall have the preferential right to such fishery privileges . . . . In a Joint Administrative Order No. 3 dated 25 April 1996, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government prescribed guidelines concerning the preferential treatment of small fisherfolk relative to the fishery right mentioned in Section 149. This case, however, does not involve such fishery right. Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of communal marine and fishing resources, but of their protection, development and conservation. As hereafter shown, the ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and conserve our marine resources to the end that their enjoyment may be guaranteed not only for the present generation, but also for the generations to come. The so-called "preferential right" of subsistence or marginal fishermen to the use of marine resources is not at all absolute. In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the State, and, pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, their "exploration, development and utilization . . . shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." Moreover, their mandated protection, development and conservation as necessarily recognized by the framers of the Constitution, imply certain restrictions on whatever right of enjoyment there may be in favor of anyone. Thus, as to the curtailment of the preferential treatment of marginal fishermen, the following exchange between Commissioner Francisco Rodrigo and Commissioner Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr., took place at the plenary session of the Constitutional Commission: MR. RODRIGO: Let us discuss the implementation of this because I would not raise the hopes of our people, and afterwards fail in the implementation. How will this be implemented? Will there be a licensing or giving of

permits so that government officials will know that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if policeman say that a person is not a marginal fisherman, he can show his permit, to prove that indeed he is one. MR. BENGZON: Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing insofar as this is concerned and this particular question could be tackled when we discuss the Article on Local Governments whether we will leave to the local governments or to Congress on how these things will be implemented. But certainly, I think our congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft of ideas on how to implement this mandate. xxx xxx xxx MR. RODRIGO: So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go anywhere in the Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds. MR. BENGZON:
Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that may be passed, may be existing or will be passed. 21 (emphasis supplied)

What must likewise be borne in mind is the state policy enshrined in the Constitution regarding the duty of the State to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. 22 On this score, in Oposa v. Factoran, 23 this Court declared: While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles the State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. . . .

The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek to give flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In fact, the General Welfare Clause, expressly mentions this right: Sec. 16. General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied). Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare provisions of the LGC "shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to the local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community." The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws. 24 Further, the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod and the sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to enact ordinances for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, which shall include, inter alia, ordinances that "[p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes, or of ecological imbalance." 25 Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of decentralization 26 as expressly mandated by the Constitution. 27 Indispensable to decentralization is devolution and the LGC expressly provides that "[a]ny provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit concerned." 28 Devolution refers to the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities. 29 One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the LGC on devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves. 30 This necessarily includes the enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the municipal waters. The term "municipal waters," in turn, includes not only streams, lakes, and tidal waters within the municipality, not being the subject of private ownership and not comprised within the national parks, public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, or fishery reserves, but also marine waters included between two lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline

from points where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline and fifteen kilometers from it. 31 Under P.D. No. 704, the marine waters included in municipal waters is limited to three nautical miles from the general coastline using the above perpendicular lines and a third parallel line. These "fishery laws" which local government units may enforce under Section 17(b)(2)(i) in municipal waters include: (1) P.D. No. 704; (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia, authorizes the establishment of a "closed season" in any Philippine water if necessary for conservation or ecological purposes; (3) P.D. No. 1219 which provides for the exploration, exploitation, utilization and conservation of coral resources; (4) R.A. No. 5474, as amended by B.P. Blg. 58, which makes it unlawful for any person, association or corporation to catch or cause to be caught, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or have in possession any of the fish specie calledgobiidae or "ipon" during closed season; and (5) R.A. No. 6451 which prohibits and punishes electrofishing, as well as various issuances of the BFAR. To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and regulation of fishing in municipal waters and the protection of its marine environment are concerned, must be added the following: 1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within municipal waters; 2. Issuance of permits to gather aquarium fishes within municipal waters; 3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis shells within municipal waters; 4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture shelled mollusks within municipal waters; 5. Issuance of licenses to establish seaweed farms within municipal waters; 6. Issuance of licenses to establish culture pearls within municipal waters; 7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to transport fish and fishery products; and 8. Establishment of "closed season" in municipal waters. These functions are covered in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and Local Government. In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted therein to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.

Parenthetically, we wish to add that these Ordinances find full support under R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, approved on 19 June 1992. This statute adopts a "comprehensive framework for the sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment of the province," which "shall serve to guide the local government of Palawan and the government agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting said province." 32 At this time then, it would be appropriate to determine the relation between the assailed Ordinances and the aforesaid powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan to protect the environment. To begin, we ascertain the purpose of the Ordinances as set forth in the statement of purposes or declaration of policies quoted earlier. It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal objectives or purposes: (1) to establish a "closed season" for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of five years; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities. The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the devolved power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters, such as P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment of "closed seasons." The devolution of such power has been expressly confirmed in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and Local Government. The realization of the second objective clearly falls within both the general welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment. 33 The destruction of coral reefs results in serious, if not irreparable, ecological imbalance, for coral reefs are among nature's life-support systems. 34 They collect, retain and recycle nutrients for adjacent nearshore areas such as mangroves, seagrass beds, and reef flats; provide food for marine plants and animals; and serve as a protective shelter for aquatic organisms. 35 It is said that "[e]cologically, the reefs are to the oceans what forests are to continents: they are shelter and breeding grounds for fish and plant species that will disappear without them." 36 The prohibition against catching live fish stems, in part, from the modern phenomenon of live-fish trade which entails the catching of so-called exotic species of tropical fish, not only for aquarium use in the West, but also for "the market for live banquet fish [which] is virtually insatiable in ever more affluent Asia. 37These exotic species are coral-dwellers, and fishermen catch them by "diving in shallow water with corraline habitats and squirting sodium cyanide poison at passing fish directly or onto coral crevices; once affected the fish are immobilized [merely stunned] and then scooped by hand." 38 The diver then surfaces and dumps his catch into a submerged net attached to the skiff. Twenty minutes later, the fish can swim normally. Back on shore, they are placed in holding pens, and within a few weeks, they expel the cyanide from their system and are ready to be hauled. They are then placed in saltwater tanks or packaged in plastic bags filled with seawater for shipment by air freight to major markets for live food fish. 39 While the fish are meant to survive, the opposite holds true for their former home as "[a]fter the fisherman squirts the cyanide, the first thing to perish is the reef algae, on which fish feed. Days later, the living coral starts to expire. Soon the reef loses its function as habitat for the fish, which eat both the algae and invertebrates that cling

to the coral. The reef becomes an underwater graveyard, its skeletal remains brittle, bleached of all color and vulnerable to erosion from the pounding of the waves." 40 It has been found that cyanide fishing kills most hard and soft corals within three months of repeated application. 41 The nexus then between the activities barred by Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa and the prohibited acts provided in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 of the Province of Palawan, on one hand, and the use of sodium cyanide, on the other, is painfully obvious. In sum, the public purpose and reasonableness of the Ordinances may not then be controverted. As to Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of the City of Puerto Princesa, we find nothing therein violative of any constitutional or statutory provision. The Order refers to the implementation of the challenged ordinance and is not the Mayor's Permit. The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo relies upon the lack of authority on the part of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1992, on the theory that the subject thereof is within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under P.D. No. 704, otherwise known as the Fisheries Decree of 1975; and that, in any event, the Ordinance is unenforceable for lack of approval by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), likewise in accordance with P.D. No. 704. The majority is unable to accommodate this view. The jurisdiction and responsibility of the BFAR under P.D. No. 704, over the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of the country is not allencompassing. First, Section 4 thereof excludes from such jurisdiction and responsibility municipal waters, which shall be under the municipal or city government concerned, except insofar as fishpens and seaweed culture in municipal centers are concerned. This section provides, however, that all municipal or city ordinances and resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for appropriate action and shall have full force and effect only upon his approval. 42 Second, it must at once be pointed out that the BFAR is no longer under the Department of Natural Resources (now Department of Environment and Natural Resources). Executive Order No. 967 of 30 June 1984 transferred the BFAR from the control and supervision of the Minister (formerly Secretary) Of Natural Resources to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF) and converted it into a mere staff agency thereof, integrating its functions with the regional offices of the MAF. In Executive Order No. 116 of 30 January 1987, which reorganized the MAF, the BFAR was retained as an attached agency of the MAF. And under the Administrative Code of 1987, 43 the BFAR is placed under the Title concerning the Department of Agriculture. 44 Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. However, the requirement of approval by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (not DENR) of municipal ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in municipal waters has been dispensed with in view of the following reasons:

(1) Section 534 (Repealing Clause) of the LGC expressly repeals or amends Sections 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704 45 insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the LGC. (2) As discussed earlier, under the general welfare clause of the LGC, local government units have the power, inter alia, to enact ordinances to enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology. It likewise specifically vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters, and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws. 46 Finally, it imposes upon the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to "[p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing . . . and such other activities which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers and lakes or of ecological imbalance." 47 In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of arresting the tide of ecological destruction. We hope that other local government units shall now be roused from their lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation of our legacy to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in their response may prove disastrous, if not, irreversible. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the temporary restraining order issued on 11 November 1993 is LIFTED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 49634-36 : July 25, 1981.] BENJAMIN V. GUIANG and NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG; AURELIO B. HIQUIANA and PASTORA O. HIQUIANA, Petitioners, vs. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR and CORAZON B. KINTANAR; CORA ANN B. KINTANAR, CORA LOU B. KINTANAR, FIL ROGER B. KINTANAR, Private Respondents, and Hon. Judge SERGIO APOSTOL, Quezon City Court of First Instance, Branch XVI, Quezon City, Respondent.

DECISION

BARREDO, J.:

Petition filed on January 15, 1979 for Certiorari and mandamus seeking the setting aside of the decision and the two orders subsequent thereto of respondent judge dated August 20, 1975 and November 14, 1978 and December 27, 1978, respectively, as acts committed in grave abuse of discretion, the compromise agreement on which said decision was based being allegedly in contravention of the Constitution and the Public Land Act, hence the execution thereof under the two questioned subsequent orders had no legal basis. The exact nature of the petition and the relevant antecedents may perhaps be stated more comprehensively by quoting from the petition itself cranad(omitting the annexes mentioned therein) the following: "2.1. This is a petition for certiorari, assailing as grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to a jurisdictional error, the order of the respondent Judge in refusing to nullify a compromise agreement that violates the Public Land Actcranad(Com. Act 141) and the 1973 Constitution, and in ordering the execution of judgment based thereon, rendered in three related cases between the petitioners and private respondents. 3.0 Antecedents "3.1. On December 5, 1974, three related complaints, successively docketed were instituted before the CFI of Quezon City, as follows: a) Spouses Benjamin V. Guiang and Natividad Hiquiana-Guiang, Plaintiffs, vs. Filomeno C. Kintanar, defendant, Civil Case No. Q-19572; b) Spouses Benjamin V. Guiang and Natividad Hiquiana-Guiang, Plaintiffs, vs. Spouses Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar, their children: Cora Ann, Cora Lou and Fil Roger, all surnamed Kintanar, defendants, Civil Case No. Q-19573; c) Spouses Aurelio and Pastora Hiquiana and spouses Benjamin and Natividad Guiang, Plaintiffs, vs. Filomeno C. Kintanar, Defendant, Civil Case No. Q-19574; "In the first complaint cranad(Civil Case No. Q-19572), plaintiffs sought certain sums of money and an accounting from defendant in his management of the former's 216 hectares of coconut lands in San Roque, Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur. "In the second and third complaints cranad(Civil Case Nos. Q-19573 and Q-19574), plaintiffs sought the rescission cranad(with damages) of the sales of their lands in favor of defendants due to the failure of the latter to pay the installments on the agreed price. "These three complaints are reproduced together with attachments as Annexes 'A', 'B' and 'C' hereof. "3.2. On August 20, 1975, the parties in these three cases, consolidated in the sala of respondent Judge, jointly moved for a decision based on a 'Compromise Agreement' substantially stipulating as follows:

(a) The Guiangs and the Hiquianas, upon signing of the compromise shall execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Kintanars, covering two parcels of land cranad(Lots B-3 and B-4) of OCT No. 12281, Register of Deeds of Davao, covering an area of 48 hectares. (b) The Kintanars shall pay the Guiangs and the Hiquianas P100,000.00 within 90 days from the execution of the deed of absolute sale above mentioned and if the Kintanars fail to pay that sum within that 90-day period, they shall forfeit all their rights, interests and claims to Lots B-1 and B-2, OCT No. 12281, and Lot A-2 and A-3, OCT No. P-16465, Register of Deeds of Davao. (c) Upon payment by the Kintanars of P100,000.00, the Guiangs and the Hiquianas shall execute a deed of absolute sale over Lots Nos. B-1 and B-2, OCT No. 12281, consisting of 48 hectares, and over Lots A-2 and A-3, OCT No. 16465, consisting of 50 hectares. (d) The Kintanars shall pay the Guiangs and the Hiquianas P70,000.00 within 60 days from date of the execution of the deed of absolute sale mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph, and the sum of P50,000.00 within 30 days from the payment of P70.000.00. If the Kintanars do not pay both amounts in their respective due dates, the Kintanars forfeit all their rights, interests and claims over Lots B-1 and B-2, OCT No. 12281 and Lot A-2, OCT P-16465, and shall reconvey the three parcels so forfeited. (e) The Kintanars agree to annotate at the back of the titles covering Lots B-1 and B-2 and Lots A-2 and A-3, this compromise agreement as a lien or encumbrance. "(f)The Agreement shall supersede all other agreements, contracts to sell and other documents pertaining to the lots in question. "3.3. On the same day, the respondent Judge promulgated a brief decision approving the compromise agreement which was made an integral part thereof. The covering decision is attached as Annex 'D', while the joint motion for decision based on compromise agreement is attached as Annex 'E' hereof. "3.4. Sometime on August 17, 1978, private respondents cranad(defendants Kintanars below) filed a petition cranad(Annex 'F') for execution of the judgment by compromise at the same time praying that petitioners be declared in contempt of court. Alleging payment to petitioners cranad(the Guiangs and Hiquianas) of the total sum of P240,000.00 pursuant to the compromise agreement, respondents complained about the failure of the petitioners to execute in their favor, the deeds of conveyance to Lots Nos. B-1 and B-2 of OCT 12281 and Lots Nos. A-2 and A-3 of OCT No. 16465, Register of Deeds of Davao. "3.5. On September 25, 1978, petitioners opposed respondents' petition for contempt and execution and filed a detailed and lengthy opposition cranad(Annex 'G'), embodying a counter-motion. 'To Declare the Compromise Agreement Void as to Sale'. In essence, petitioners contend that the compromise decreed the sale to the Kintanars of six lots with a combined area of 146 hectares originally covered by sales patents acquired through purchase by petitioners from the government, consequently violating the maximum limit of 24 hectares that an individual may acquire by purchase under Section 11 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, taken in relation to the Public Land Act cranad(Com. Art 141). At the time

of the execution of the compromise agreement, petitioners were not aware that private respondents were already holders of 29 hectares of public land acquired before the effectivity of the new Constitution in 1973. At any rate, the total area that the compromise agreement ceded in favor of respondents were grossly excessive of the legal limits above mentioned. If construed as a sale, the compromise was a nullity, but taken as a lease, since private respondents had already taken possession of the lands and benefited immensely from their produce, the compromise was perfectly valid and legal because the 1923 Constitution allows an individual to lease 500 hectares of alienable public lands. Viewing the compromise as a lease would make the amounts paid by respondents to petitioners, rentals or reasonable damages for the use and occupancy of the lands. "At the same time, petitioners sought for a post-judgment hearing to ventilate factual issues arising from their opposition and counter-motion. "3.6. On November 14, 1978, the respondent Judge issued an order cranad(Annex 'H'): cranad(a) denying the petitioners' counter-motion to declare the compromise agreement void as to sale; cranad(b) ordered the issuance of a writ of execution andcranad(c) denying respondents' petition for contempt. "3.7. On November 24, 1978, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsiderationcranad(attached as Annex 'I') of the Order of November 14, 1978, insofar as that portion where the respondent Judge refused to nullify the compromise agreement as a sale. "3.8. During the hearing of this motion on December 5, 1978, the parties agreed to submit a supplemental memorandum of authorities to buttress their respective positions. On December 20, 1978, petitioners submitted their memorandum of authorities which is attached hereto as Annex 'J'. "3.9. Respondents did not submit any memorandum, or in any event, petitioners did not receive a copy of such memorandum. On December 27, 1978, respondent Judge denied for lack of merit, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. cranad(Annex 'K'). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(Pp. 2-6, Petition, pp. 5-9, Record.) On February 2, 1979, We required respondents to comment on the petition, issuing at the same time a restraining order against the implementation of the impugned order of execution. Although filed ten cranad(10) days beyond the period given by the Court, We nevertheless accepted respondents' comment, considering that the main issue raised by petitioners is a novel one, in the sense that it is predicated on the theory that a judgment by compromise, which becomes final and executory upon approval by the court, may still be set aside, three cranad(3) years later and after it had been partially complied with by both parties, upon the ground that the agreement, it is contended, violates the Constitution and the Public Land Act, hence contrary to public policy of the Philippines. Petitioners maintain the affirmative, contending that when the purpose of setting aside a judicial compromise is to pursue and implement a fundamental state policy embodied in no less than the Constitution, the ordinary remedies for relief and periods therefor do not apply. On the other hand, private respondents posit in their belated comment that:

"Private Respondents, by counsel, respectfully submit the following comment: 1.0 On the Petition 1.1. In line with the decision of this court in the case of ROMULA MABALE, et al., Petitioners vs. Hon. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK, et al., Respondents, cranad(G.R. No. L-46942, Feb. 6, 1979) petitioners should have seasonably moved for the setting aside of the compromise and the judgment based upon it. In that case this court said: 'To be entitled to appeal from judgment approving a compromise, a party must move not only to set aside the judgment, but also to annul or set cranad(aside) the compromise itself on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress vitiating his consent to the compromise . cra . to set it aside under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, the petition for relief must be filed within six months from the date judgment was entered.cralaw cranad(supra) 1.2. The judgment based on compromise in these three cases was entered on 20 August 1975, on the same date that the compromise agreement was signed and submitted, so that petitioners should be presumed to have knowledge about it on said date also. Petitioners had, therefore, up to 20 February 1976 within which to file their petition for relief. 1.3. On 22 September 1975, or just about 32 days after the judgment on compromise was entered, petitioner Guiang wrote a 'four page letter' to the Land Registration Commissioner, already questioning the legality of the sales under the compromise agreement on exactly the rationale he advances now. 1.4. The Commissioner of LRC replied to petitioner Guiang on 29 September 1975 cranad(seven days later) confirming and agreeing in so many words with the latter's belief that Section 122 of CA 141 was being violated by the implementation of the compromise agreement. 1.5. From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioners had more than ample time within which to seek relief from the lower court's judgment on compromise. They deliberately neglected to do this. Instead, leading the private respondents on to complying with the compromise, petitioners received the payments of the private respondents in the following amounts: P100,000.00 on 19 November 1975 70,000.00 on 23 March 1976 50,000.00 on 21 April 1976 1.6. Petitioner Guiang, having thus acquired the wherewithal, thereafter traveled extensively abroad, returning home sometime in September or October of 1977. In any case, upon his arrival, he wrote respondent Atty. Filomeno Kintanar a letter dated October 9, 1977 informing the latter that he, petitioner Guiang, and his family will never sign the deeds of sale for the remaining lots cranad(B-1, B-2, A-2 and A-3); that the transfer of lots B-3 and B-4 were void, and inferentially threatening Kintanar with criminal prosecution for a statement in an affidavit accompanying the transfer of Lots B-3 and B-4. Atty.

Guiang further demanded the return of Lots B-3 and B-4 without offering to return one centavo of the payments he received. 1.7. Even then the petitioners raised the question of legality of the compromise agreement and the judgment in earnest only when the private respondents were constrained to move for court intervention by way of an order of execution on 18 August 1978. 1.8. What all the foregoing citation of events lead to is that under the doctrine laid down in the case aforecited, petitioners have by their studied neglect, foreclosed entitlement to appeal by certiorari, there having been all along 'plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of lawcralaw cranad(Sec. 1 Rule 65, Rules of Court). chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(Pp. 169-171, Record.) As background for the resolution of the above conflicting claims of the parties, We may quote hereunder from the petition what appear to be the specific relevant facts bearing on the question of whether or not there is indeed any public policy violated in the compromise agreement in issue as would justify its nullification and setting aside, notwithstanding the time that has elapsed before the supposed unconstitutionality thereof was raised, particularly in the light of Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court on Petitions for Relief, which fixes the period for possible setting aside of a judgment at only sixty cranad(60) days from the time the party concerned learns of the judgment and not later than six months or 180 days after it has become final and executory, and besides, the fact that said judicial compromise had already been partially complied with by the parties, petitioners having actually executed and delivered to respondents the corresponding deeds of sale covering two of the contested lots cranad(Lots B-3 and B-4 covered by OCT 12881), such that what is pending only for the complete consummation of the agreement is the execution by petitioners, the Guiangs and Hiquianas, of the deeds of sale over four more lots covered by said agreement. According to the petition cranad(omitting the attachments mentioned therein), and there is no serious denial thereof in private respondents' comments: "Pertinent Factual Milieu Re-Stated (a) History of Petitioners' Lands 1. The six parcels of land totalling 146 hectares were originally part of the public domain. They were leased by the Philippine Government in favor of Gaudencio C Hiquiana, deceased predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The lease was covered by Lease Application No. 2439 cranad(E-244), covering about 350 hectares of land situated in Davao del Sur, for 25 years pursuant to Act 2874. 2. Upon the death of Gaudencio C. Hiquiana, his wife, Pascuala Vda. de Hiquiana, obtained an approval for the renewal of the lease. A certified copy of the lease issued by then Director Jose P. Dans of the Bureau of Lands was among the attachments in petitioners' Counter-Motion cranad(Annex 'G') in the court below.

3. Pascuala Vda. de Hiquiana had her land surveyed and subdivided into four lots, to wit: Lots A, B, C and D, with the corresponding subdivision plan Psd-34219 approved by the Director of Lands on February 21, 1952. 4. Later, the widow and her children filed sales applications with the Bureau of Lands to purchase these subdivided lots: cranad(a) the sales application of the widow for Lot C was recorded as No. V15066;cranad(b) the sales application by Natividad Hiquiana Guiang for Lot B was recorded as No. V15067; cranad(c) Aurelio Hiquiana for Lot A, as Application No. 26001; and cranad(d) Julia Hiquiana for Lot D. 5. On April 29, 1959, Sales Patent No. 2521 was issued to Natividad Hiquiana Guiang for an area of 110 hectares, 4 acres and 14 centares, embraced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-12281 dated June 12, 1959. This torrens title was among the attachments of petitioners' counter-motion cranad(Annex 'G'). 6. On March 10, 1966, Sales Patent No. 3180 was issued to Aurelio V. Hiquiana, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-16465 dated April 22, 1964. 7. Natividad H. Guiang subsequently subdivided her Lot B into five cranad(5) lots, which came to be known as Lots B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4, all with 24 hectares each, or a total of 96 hectares, and Lot B-5, with an area of 14.0413, or a grand total of 110.0413 hectares. 8. Aurelio V. Hiquiana, who got Lot A, also subdivided the same lot into three cranad(3) lots, which came to be known as Lots A-1 cranad(60.6182 hectares), Lot A-2 cranad(25 hectares) and Lot A-3 cranad(25 hectares) making a grand total of 110.6182 hectares covered by Subdivision Plan Psd-13824. 9. The six lots covered by the compromise agreement between the parties refer to the 4 out of the 5 lots into which original Lot B was subdivided by Natividad Hiquiana Guiang, and 2 out of the 3 lots of the original Lot A subdivided by Aurelio Hiquiana. The first four lots have an area of 96 hectares cranad(24 hectares each) while the two lots have an aggregate area of 50 hectares cranad(25 hectares each). Thus the total area of the 6 lots subject of the compromise agreement was 146 hectares of originally public lands. (b) Actions Taken by Petitioners In conformity with the Compromise Agreement, the petitioners immediately executed a deed of sale over Lots B-3 and B-4, in favor of the private respondents cranad(see attachment A of Annex 'G'). Notwithstanding completion of the staggered payments for the other lots, petitioners could not bring themselves to execute the deeds for their conveyance because by then, they were seized by serious misgivings concerning the legality of the compromise agreement. What triggered the quest for legal opinions by the petitioners, was the discovery that at the time of the compromise agreement, private respondents did not disclose that they had already acquired 29 hectares of alienable public lands.

On September 22, 1975, a four-page letter was addressed by petitioner Guiang to the Land Registration Commissioner cranad(see attachment F of Annex 'G') concerning the legality of a transfer of lands originally acquired through sales patent, in excess of the maximum of 24 hectares imposed by the New Constitution. In reply, the Commissioner of the Land Registration Commission stated that the document of transfer was already an accomplished fact and bears the imprimatur of the Court, and that since private respondents cranad(the Kintanars) had executed an affidavit which incidentally was false and which became the basis of a criminal charge for perjury before the Fiscal's Office of Davao del Sur the Commissioner was constrained to give due course to the registration of the sale cranad(Attachment A of Annex 'G'). On October 9, 1977, petitioner Guiang wrote a letter to respondent Kintanar cranad(see Attachment H of Annex 'G') explaining his reasons why he could not execute a deed of conveyance of the remaining four lots subject of the compromise agreement. Petitioner proposed reconveyance and certain repayments in lieu of the compromise agreement to avoid the harmful effects of escheat. But Kintanar ignored the deadline set by Guiang for acceptance of the counterproposals. To pressure Kintanar, Guiang filed a criminal case for forgery and violation of the Constitution before the Fiscal's Office of Davao del Sur. Unfortunately, the Fiscal dismissed the charge on the ground that the lands so transferred were already private agricultural lands, and there is no limit under the law for the acquisition by purchase of these lands. cranad(See other attachment of Annex 'G'). On July 12, 1978, the Legal Division of the Bureau of Lands, replying to petitioner Guiang, gave the following pertinent opinions: a. '. cra . After a public land has been titled under the provisions of the Public Land Act cranad(Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, the same, for all legal intents and purposes, becomes a private agricultural land subject, however, to the restrictions contained in Section 29, 118, 119, 121 and 122 of the said Act.' b. '. cra . Simply stated, an individual cannot acquire either by sale, transfer, assignment or lease, lands originally acquired under the free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 if the total area of such acquisition added to his present landholdings exceeds one hundred forty-four hectares. c. '. cra . It must follow as a matter of course that since January 17, 1973 when the New Constitution went into force, the maximum area of patented or titled land that an individual can acquire is only such as will not exceed twenty-fourcranad(24) hectares including his present landholdings. With these premises, it is our considered opinion that the maximum area that an individual could acquire under Article 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, has been amended or reduced to 24 hectares as provided for under Section 11, Article XIV, of the 1973 Constitution.' (This letter is embodied in Attachments K and K-1 to Annex 'G'.)

Again, on September 20, 1978, the Director of Lands wrote petitioner Guiang, expressing the opinion that husband and wife are considered as one person for purposes of implementing Sec. 122 of C.A. 141, and the maximum area of 144 hectares which can be acquired by an individual under the same provision of the Public Land Act, has been reduced to only 24 hectares by virtue of the New Constitution. The letter of Director Casanova appears as Attachment H to Annex 'G' of this Petition. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(Pp. 10-14 of Petition) In the light of the foregoing premises, the legal and constitutional issues We have to resolve are the following: 1. Does Section II, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, reading: "Sec. 11. The National Assembly, taking into account conservation, ecological, and developmental requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of lands of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to, any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor. No Private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area; nor may any citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire by purchase or homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. No private corporation or association may hold by lease, concession, license, or permit, timber or forest lands and other timber or forest resources in excess of one hundred thousand hectares; however, such area may be increased by the National Assembly upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority." constitute an amendment of Section 122 of Commonwealth Act 141, the Public Land Act providing that: "Except in cases of hereditary succession, no land or any portion hereof originally acquired under the free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of this Act, or any permanent improvement hereon be leased to such individual, when the area of such land, added to that of his own, shall exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares, any transfer, assignment, or lease made in violation hereof shall be null and void." in the sense that after the Constitution took effect on January 17, 1973, any transfer or assignment of lands, already validly in the hands of private individuals and having areas allowed by said provision, cranad(not in excess of 144 hectares) but acquired by them under free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of the Act, the area that may be transferred or assigned such holder to another person can no longer exceed twenty-four cranad(24) hectares? 2. Assuming the affirmative of the foregoing proposition, but considering, on the other hand, that the parties had entered into the agreement in good faith as the means of settling amicably the three juridical suits cranad(enumerated in the petition) among them, and that the approval of the court thereof had under the rules already long become final, as in fact, it had already been partially executed in 1975, is it still legally possible to have the same declared a nullity and be set aside as prayed for in an opposition filed in 1978 to a motion for its execution?

3. It is a conceded fact that when they entered into the compromise agreement in dispute, private respondents, the Kintanar spouses, were already the owners and had already the title in their names of a lot of 29 hectares acquired under the Public Land Act; now, what is the effect of such fact upon the validity of the compromise agreement, considering the prohibition contained in the same Section 122 against transfer or assignment to persons already owning areas of lands, which if added to what is to be transferred or assigned to them would exceed the limit provided therein? I After mature deliberation and consideration of pertinent principles of statutory and constitutional construction together with what appears to be the obvious intent and objective of the legal and constitutional provisions relevant to the above issue, We encounter no difficulty at all in holding that, as contended by petitioners, Section 122 of the Public Land Act has been amended by no less than Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines by reducing correspondingly the areas of the disposable public lands mentioned therein. In their comment as well as their memorandum, however, private respondent insistscranad(1) that there is no "causative link," as they put it, between the limitation of areas in the Constitution and the limitation of areas in the Public Land Act. They argue that whereas under the 1935 Constitution, the pertinent provision was that: "Sec. 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease or hold public agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty four hectares, nor may an individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty four hectares or by lease in excess of one thousand and twenty four hectares or by homestead in excess of twenty four hectares . cra . chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(Sec. 2, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution) the limit to leasable lands was 1,024 hectares, Section 122 of the Public Land Act set the limit to only 144 hectares and cranad(2) that the limitation of purchasable areas under the Act is also 144 hectares was a mere unintended coincidence. Clearly, such contention suffers from the flaw known in logic as non-sequitur. There was nothing wrong for the legislature to provide for a limitation, as to leasable lands, less than that fixed in the Constitution. In fact, the cited constitutional provision itself opens with the statement that "(t)he National Assembly, taking into account conservation, ecological, and developmental requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of lands of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to, any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor." The so-called "causative link" would indeed not have existed, had the Congress exceeded what the Charter allowed. The arguments about unintended "coincidence" in the limit of purchasable areas is too speculative, even puerile, to require any refutation. What to Us is clear and obvious is that when the Constitution fixes a limit of the area of public lands that can be "acquired" by purchase by an individual, it follows as a matter of logic that such is also the maximum area of land originating from the public domain that can

be transferred to him. True, lands once acquired from the government under the Act do become private property, as private respondent argues, but for reasons of public policy and interest implicit in Section 122 itself, such private ownership is subject to the limitations stated therein. Proof of the strictness of the policy is that the prohibition or injunction is automatically embodied in the Torrens Title issued to the purchaser. All such titles pertinently read in part thus: "ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE "TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of land, with the appurtenances thereunto of right belonging unto the said __________ and to his heir and heirs and assigns forever, subject to the provisions of Sections 121, 122 and 124 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended. cranad(Emphasis supplied) "TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE "IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that certain land situated in the _____________, more particularly bounded and described as follows: is registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 122 of the Land Registration Act in the name of: subject to the provisions of the said Land Registration Act and the Public Land Act, as well as to those of the Mining Laws, if the land is mineral, and subject further to such conditions contained in the original title and may be subsisting. cranad(Emphasis supplied for emphasis) chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(Pp. 277-278, Record.) It is Our considered opinion, and We so hold, consistently with the view of the Legal Division of the Bureau of Lands cited by petitioners in their petition cranad(p. 14) that after the ratification of the Philippine Constitution of 1973 on January 17, 1973, the maximum area of land acquired from the disposable public domain that can be transferred or assigned to another party by the original patentee, purchaser or homesteader became 24 hectares cranad(instead of the 144 hectares under the 1935 Constitution), thereby reducing correspondingly the 144-hectare limitation set in Section 122 to only 24 hectares. We hereby adopt as Our own the subsequent opinion of the Director of Lands quoted not only in the petition, as already stated, but also in petitioners' "Motion Ex-Parte for Earliest Decision of the Above-Entitled Case" dated October 7, 1980: "The first query is whether public lands which have already been titled or patented under the homestead sales or individual sale or free patent provision of Public Land Act are to be considered 'private agricultural lands.' After a public land has been titled under the provisions of the Public Land Actcranad(Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended) the same for all legal intents and purposes, becomes a private agricultural land subject, however, to the restrictions contained in Section 29, 118, 119, 121 and 122 of the said Act. "Your second query states whether Article 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended covers a situation wherein parcels of public lands acquired by an individual, which after collation exceed 144 hectares which have already long been patented under homestead, individual sale or free patent

provisions thereof could be owned or possessed by him legally. Our reply to the above is in the affirmative. The pertinent provision of Section 122 of the Public Land Act provides: 'Except in cases of hereditary succession, no land or any portion thereof originally acquired under the free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of this act, or any permanent improvement on such land shall be transferred or assigned to any individual, nor shall such land or any permanent improvement thereon be leased to such individual, when the area of said land, added to that of his own, shall exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares. Any transfer, assignment or lease in violation hereof shall be null and void.' "The aforequoted provision constitutes one limitation on the transfer or lease of lands titled under the provisions of the Public Land Act. Simply stated, an individual cannot acquire either by sale, transfer, assignment or lease, lands originally acquired under the free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 if the total area of such acquisition added to his present landholdings exceed one hundred forty-four hectares. To construe the provision otherwise would render nugatory the rationale or philosophy which underlined such a restriction which is to prevent the concentration of large tracts of lands in the hands of a single individual. There is only one recognized exception to this and that is when the transfer or assignment is by means of hereditary succession in which event the area limitation contained in Section 122 will not apply. "As regards your third question on whether the maximum area that an individual could acquire under Section 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended has been amended from 144 to 24 hectares, our reply thereto is in the affirmative. "It will be stated as a preliminary premise that the basis of the 144 hectare limit provided for in Section 122 of the Public Land Act is the area stated in Section 22 of the same Act which is also one hundred forty-four hectares. The area limits set forth in these two sections of the act are based on the constitutional limit contained in the 1935 Philippine Constitution. Since the Newcranad(1973) Constitution in its Section 4, Article XIV has chosen to reduce the original area that an individual can purchase from one hundred forty-fourcranad(144) to twenty four cranad(24) hectares, it must follow as a matter of course that since January 17, 1973, when the New Constitution went into full force, the maximum area of patented or titled land that an individual can acquire is only such as will not exceed twenty-four cranad(24) hectares including his present landholdings. With these premises, it is our considered opinion that the maximum area that an individual could acquire under Article 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, has been amended or reduced to 24 hectares as provided for under Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(Annex K of Annex G of the petition.) II Having the foregoing conclusion in view, may the judicial compromise in question in the instant cases be declared null and void or at least reduced as to the area therein referred to only 24 hectares, considering the peculiar factual milieu extant in the record?

This question is not as simple as it seems. It involves both adjective and substantive points that have to be carefully weighed and scrutinized in order to arrive at a legal and just conclusion. A With respect to its remedial or procedural law aspect, it is beyond dispute that the order approving the compromise agreement of the parties herein became immediately final and executory upon its promulgation on August 20, 1975, so much so that deeds of sale covering two lots cranad(Lots B-3 and B-4 of OCT No. 12281 of the Registry of Deeds of Davao) were executed and delivered by the Guiangs to private respondents the next day, August 21, 1975. Neither a motion for reconsideration of said order nor a petition for relief therefrom was filed within their respective due periods fixed by the Rules. According to the petition itself, on the dates agreed upon, private respondents paid petitioners as each installment fell due, the total sum of P240,000.00. cranad(This figure is not admitted by private respondents.) It was only on August 17, 1978 that, as far as the trial court was concerned, the rumblings of a grave controversy between the parties began to be heard, for on said date, private respondents filed with said court, the following: "PETITION TO DECLARE PARTY IN CONTEMPT AND FOR EXECUTION DEFENDANTS, by undersigned counsel, respectfully allege: 1. That the parties hereto entered into a compromise agreement entitled 'JOINT MOTION FOR A DECISION BASED ON A COMPROMISE' on August 20, 1975, which was approved and made the basis for a decision of the court terminating these cases. 2. That in compliance with their undertakings delineated in paragraphs 2 and 4 of aforecited compromise agreement, defendants have faithfully paid the plaintiffs the total amount of Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Pesos cranad(P240,000.00) well within the agreed limiting dates, which payments represented full and complete satisfaction of the amounts due the plaintiffs under the agreement. 3. That despite compliance by the defendants of their part of the agreement, plaintiffs have failed, and despite repeated demands, have refused and up to this date continue to fail and refuse to execute the deeds of conveyance to Lots Nos. B-1 and B-2 of O.C.T. No. 12281 and Lots Nos. A-2 and A-3 of O.C.T. No. 16465, which actions they promised and undertook to do under paragraph 3 of the compromise agreement. 4. That the payments made by the defendants to plaintiffs were duly and timely reported to this Honorable Court. 5. That the approval of the Court of the compromise agreement had the effect of converting the actions agreed upon therein into specific orders of the court that they be so executed.

6. That under Sec. 10 of the rules, the plaintiffs having refused to comply with the order of the court, the court may direct either that the conveyance be done by some other person at the cost of the disobedient party or enter judgment divesting title from the plaintiffs and vesting same with the defendants. WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that: 1. Plaintiffs after being afforded a chance to be heard by himself or counsel be declared in contempt of this Honorable Court, imposing upon said defendant such penalty as this court may deem just and proper. 2. That plaintiffs be divested of title to Lots Nos. B-1 and B-2 and Lots Nos. A-2 and A-3, vesting said titles with defendants as follows: B-1 to CORA-ANN B. KINTANAR B-2 to CORA-LOU B. KINTANAR A-2 to FILOMENO C. KINTANAR A-3 to FIL-ROGER B. KINTANAR Quezon City, 17 August 1978. cranad(Sgd.) PATERNO P. TRINIDAD Counsel for the Defendants 64 12th Ave., Cubao, Q.C." (Annex F, pp. 62-64, Record.) To this petition, petitioners filed an 18-page opposition which, at the cost of extending this opinion, We will quote, for the sake of a deeper insight into the respective positions of the parties vis-a-vis the issues We are resolving: "O P P O S I T I O N (To Defendants' Petition to Declare Party In Contempt and For Execution WITH MOTION TO DECLARE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT VOID AS TO SALE "COME NOW plaintiffs in the three cranad(3) above-captioned civil cases, thru their undersigned counsels, and answering defendants' PETITION TO DECLARE PARTY IN CONTEMPT AND FOR EXECUTION

dated 17 August 1978, most respectfully interpose the instant Opposition DENYING or ADMITTING the material allegations thereof as follows: I "Plaintiffs ADMIT the allegations found in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the petition regarding the fact of presentation by the parties hereto of a so-called Compromise Agreement between the parties hereto and its subsequent approval by this Honorable Court and also in so far as the same alleges payment to plaintiffs by defendant-vendees Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar of the amounts provided therein. Plaintiffs, however, DENY, for reasons found elsewhere in this pleading, the rest of the allegations thereof insofar as they impute upon plaintiffs the obligation to execute a deed of conveyance over the six cranad(6) parcels of land subject matter of the three cranad(3) above-entitled cases, or insofar as they insinuate that such payments represent consideration for the sale of such land. The reason for this is plain that any such sale would be prohibited under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141, known otherwise as the Public Land Act, in correlation with the 1973 Constitution, which prohibit the acquisition by any citizen of the Philippines of any lands of the public domain in excess of twenty fourcranad(24) hectares. II "Plaintiffs DENY paragraph 3 of the petition of defendants insofar as the same alleges 'compliance' only on the part of defendants of their alleged obligations under the so-called Compromise Agreement and failure and refusal on the part of plaintiffs to execute certain 'actions they promised and undertook to do' as indicating a lack of candor if not a gross misrepresentation of facts before this Honorable Court. The fact is that as early as August 21, 1975, or the day following the August 20, 1975 date of the Compromise Agreement and Decision of this Court approving the same, plaintiffs-spouses Benjamin V. Guiang and Natividad H. Guiang, in compliance with and obedience to such Decision, immediately executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of defendants-spouses Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar over Lots 'B-3' and 'B-4cralaw cranad(covered by Sales Patent No. 2521 and Original Certificate of Title No. 12281 of the Register of Deeds of Davao in the name of plaintiffs-spouses Benjamin V. Guiang and Natividad H. Guiang), with the result that the latter-mentioned office caused cancellation of the certificate/s of title in the names of said plaintiffs-spouses and entered two cranad(2) new certificates of title in the names of defendant-spouses. "Xerox copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale of plaintiffs-spouses as vendors dated August 21, 1975 which also bear the signature of defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar as Vendee is hereto attached, marked Annex 'A', and made an integral part of this Opposition. "Much as it is plaintiffs' sincere desire to comply with the remainder of what is incumbent upon them as provided in the aforementioned Compromise Agreement, the same cannot, however, be done with impunity since, as will be fully discussed elsewhere in this pleading, such an act is prohibited by the law and the Constitution and therefore legally impossible of accomplishment. III

"Plaintiffs DENY the allegations of paragraph 4 of the petition for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof at the time of preparation of this pleading. IV "Plaintiffs CONCEDE in principle the legal conclusion expressed in paragraph 5 of the petition but DENY its applicability to the cases at bar for reasons already outlined elsewhere in this pleading. V "Plaintiffs hypothetically ADMIT the legal conclusion expressed in paragraph 6 of the petition, but DENY such allegations therein insofar as they insinuate plaintiffs contumaciously refused to comply with 'the order of the Court.' As plaintiffs shall endeavor to explain herein, ever since their execution of the Deed of Sale, Annex 'A', plaintiffs have been actually taking tedious, painful and time-consuming efforts and steps if only to determine once and for all whether they are really bound to execute the deeds and acts provided for in the Compromise Agreement. As things have turned out, plaintiffs have now become more than ever convinced that such acts as are proposed by defendants-spouses run counter to public policy, thus prompting plaintiffs to exercise restraint in the matter. If this be interpreted as a refusal to comply with the remainder of what is allegedly incumbent upon them, such refusal is, however, justified, for to direct plaintiffs to do otherwise would be to command them to violate the fundamental law of the land, something that neither the plaintiffs nor this Court cannot be privy to. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE 6 LOTS SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT "For the purposes of obtaining a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of the plaintiffs' stand as outlined in the pleading at bar, plaintiffs have deemed it essential and relevant to trace and bring forth to the attention of the Honorable Court the origins of the six cranad(6) lots subject-matter of the compromise agreement presented in the three cranad(3) above-captioned civil cases. "The said six cranad(6) lots originally formed part of that larger parcel of land which became the subjectmatter of an earlier contract of lease executed and granted by the Government of the Philippine Islands as Lessor, in favor of GAUDENCIO C. HIQUIANA cranad(now deceased), as Lessee, under Lease Application No. 2439 cranad(E-244), covering a parcel of land situated in Malita cranad(now Sta. Maria) Davao del Sur, with an area of 350,6569 hectares for a period of 25 years from January 21, 1927 cranad(or until January 20, 1952) under the provisions of Act No. 2874. "After the Lessee died sometime in the year 1942, and upon petition of PASCUALA V. VDA. DE HIQUIANA as surviving wife of GAUDENCIO C. HIQUIANA, the contract of lease affecting said 350-hectare parcel of land was extended by means of an Order of Reconstitution and Renewal of Lease Contract dated February 21, 1950 for another period of 25 years from and including January 20, 1952, said application and extension granted being recorded under the name of PASCUALA V. VDA. DE HIQUIANA as Lessee. Certified copy of the aforementioned Order of Reconstitution and Renewal of Lease Contract issued by then Director of Lands Jose P. Dans is hereto attached, marked Annex 'B', and made an integral part of this pleading.

"By authority of the Office of the Bureau of Lands secured, and as per Lessee's request, the area covered under the above-mentioned lease application was subdivided into four cranad(4) lots, known as Lots 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', with the corresponding subdivision plan prepared, identified as Psd-34219, approved by the Director of Lands on February 21, 1952. "On January 26, 1951, the Lessee requested the segregation of Lots 'A', 'B' and 'D' of said subdivision plan Psd-34219 requesting that she cranad(Lessee) be allowed to purchase Lot 'C' thereof, that her daughter NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG be allowed to purchase Lot 'B', that her son AURELIO HIQUIANA be allowed to purchase Lot 'A' and that Lot 'D' be allocated to JULIA HIQUIANA. "After due investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands, on March 31, 1953 the Sales Application of PASCUALA V. VDA. DE HIQUIANA for Lot 'C' of the 350-hectare land covered under Psd-34219 was accepted and recorded as Sales Application No. V-15066. The Sales Application filed by NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG for Lot 'B' was likewise accepted and recorded as Sales Application No. V-15067. AURELIO V. HIQUIANA and JULIA HIQUIANA were likewise given opportunity to file their corresponding Sales Application covering Lots 'A' and 'D', respectively. "All the foregoing appear in an Order issued by then Director of Lands Zoilo Castrillo dated March 31, 1953, certified copy of which is hereto attached, marked Annex 'C', and made an integral part of this pleading. "Subsequently, and pursuant to such Order, AURELIO V. HIQUIANA duly filed Sales Application on Lot 'A' corresponding to him, which became known and recorded as Sales Application No. 26001. "On April 29, 1959, NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG was issued Sales Patent No. 2521 on her Sales Application No. V-15067 covering an area of 110 hectares 4 acres and 14 centares by authority of the President of the Philippines, pursuant to which Original Certificate of Title No. P-12281 dated June 12, 1959 was issued by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Davao. Xerox copy of said Certificate of Title is attached, marked Annex 'D', and made integral part of this Opposition with Motion. "On March 10, 1964, AURELIO V. HIQUIANA was also issued Sales Patent No. 3180 on his Sales Application No. V-26001 by authority of the President of the Philippines, pursuant to which Original Certificate of Title No. P-16465 dated April 22, 1964 was issued by the Register of Deeds for the Province of Davao. Xerox copy of said certificate of title is hereto attached, marked Annex 'E' and made an integral part of this Opposition and Motion. "NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG then duly requested for subdivision of her land Lot 'Bcralawcranad(Sales Patent No. 2521 and O.C.T. No. P-12281) into five cranad(5) lots, which came to known as Lots 'B-1', 'B-2', 'B-3' and 'B-4' with 24 hectares each, or an aggregate area of 96 hectares and Lot 'B-5' with an area of 14.0413 hectares, or a total area of 110.0413 hectares, under Subdivision Plan cranad(LRC) Psd-137751, approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration on March 26, 1971. "AURELIO V. HIQUIANA who was awarded Lot 'A' of Psd-34219 cranad(Sales Patent No. 3180 and O.C.T. No. P-16465) also effected subdivision the same into three cranad(3) lots, known respectively as Lots 'A-

1' with an area of 60.6182 hectares, Lot 'A-2' with an area of 25 hectares, and Lot 'A-3' with an area of 25 hectares, or a total area of 110.6182 hectares, covered under Subdivision Plan cranad(LRC) Psd138284 approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration on April 5, 1971. "In fine, the four cranad(4) lots cranad(out of the 5 lots awarded to NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG under Sales Patent No. 2521) known as Lots 'B-1', 'B-2', 'B-3' and 'B-4' have areas of 25 hectares each, or an aggregate area of 96 hectares, while the twocranad(2) lots involved in the cases at bar cranad(out of the 3 lots awarded to AURELIO V. HIQUIANA under Sales Patent No. 3180) known as Lots 'A-2' and 'A-3' have a read of 25 hectares. The total area of six cranad(6) lots which have become subject-matter of the compromise agreement, the decision approving the same, and presently, plaintiffs' pleading at bar, is therefore 146 hectares of land originally of the public domain, or public agricultural lands, acquired by the afore-named plaintiffs by purchase from the Government of the Philippine Islands. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT VOID AND PLAINTIFFS' EARNEST EFFORTS EXERTED IN DETERMINING THEIR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS THEREUNDER CITED "Vis-a-vis the petition seeking to declare and hold plaintiffs liable for contempt of this Honorable Court, plaintiffs have deemed it wise to incorporate in this pleading a brief statement of the several tedious, time-consuming and earnest steps taken by them in sustained efforts to seek once and for all clarification of the law on the matter with the end in view of complying with whatever obligations they may have assumed under the compromise agreement, to wit: "1. On September 22, 1975 and October 14, 1975, or around a month after plaintiffs-spouses signed the Deed of Absolute Sale, Annex 'A' of this pleading, the Guiang & Alejo Law Offices as counsel of plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases, having serious doubts at to the legality and propriety of the Deed of Sale, Annex 'A' of this pleading, became prompted to address two cranad(2) letters to the Commissioner of Land Registration, Manila, therein making the following query: 'Whether your Davao Office can refuse to accept for registration a Deed of Sale which by express provision of the document will be violative of Section 122 as amended by Commonwealth Act 615 and further amended by section 11 of Article 14 of the new Constitution.' Copy of said letter of query of plaintiffs' counsel is hereto attached, marked as Annexes 'F' and 'F-1', and made integral parts of this pleading. "2. In a communication addressed to plaintiffs' counsel dated October 17, 1977, Commissioner Gregorio Bilog, Jr. of the Land Registration Commission, replying to the above-mentioned query, stated among other things, the following: 'The Register of Deeds should comply with the law. However, the matter of registration of the deed of sale in question which was executed in compliance with the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, including the issuance of the corresponding transfer certificates of title being a fait accompli, this Commission feels it not proper to render an opinion. Moreover, according to your earlier letter the deed of sale was registered 'upon presentation of an affidavit of ownership by Atty. Filomeno

Kintanar that he and his wife are holders of land not more than that allowed by the Constitution' which gives the impression that the document is registrable.' Copy of said reply letter of the LRC Commissioner is hereto attached, marked as Annex 'C', and made an integral part of this pleading. "3. On October 9, 1977, plaintiff Benjamin V. Guiang addressed a letter to defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar, received by the latter on October 11, 1977, wherein plaintiff endeavored to explain in detail the reasons why, despite earnest efforts exerted on his part with the end in view of implementing the Compromise Agreement and Decision of this Honorable Court aforementioned, plaintiffs could not bring themselves to sign the draft of a Deed of Sale presented by defendants to plaintiffs thru the latter's counsel over the remaining four cranad(4) lots subject-matter of the cases at bar. In such letter, plaintiff instead proposed another amicable settlement more in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Constitution, therein giving defendants up to November 30, 1977 within which to signify their stand or otherwise express their views. Salient points taken up in said letter: (a) That the proposed Deed of Sale is not in accordance with the Compromise Agreement approved by the Court since the said Compromise Agreement has for its vendee for the remaining 4 lots the Spouses Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar, whereas the proposed Deed of Sale has for its vendees Fil-Roger cranad(over Lot 'B-2') Cora-Ann cranad(over Lot 'A-2') and Cora Lou cranad(over Lot 'A-3') all surnamed Kintanar; (b) That the proposed Deed of Sale, once signed by plaintiffs to convey Lot 'B-1cralaw cranad(containing 24 hectares) in favor of Corazon B. Kintanar, will constitute a direct violation or infringement of the 24 hectare maximum limit or area of public land that the law provides any citizen of the Philippines could acquire under the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, considering that by the time of effectivity of said Constitution, Corazon B. Kintanar was the registered owner of 29.07751 hectares originally acquired by homestead under the Public Land Act; (c) That on account of the foregoing considerations, plaintiffs therefore proposed another amicable settlement of the case more in accord with the new Constitution and the law;. (d) That defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar was requested to state his position on plaintiffs' said proposal by or on November 30, 1977, to avoid further Court or administrative actions. Copies of the aforementioned letter of plaintiff dated October 9, 1977 and the proposed Deed of Absolute Sale are hereto attached, marked respectively as Annexes 'H' and 'H-1' and made integral parts of this pleading. "4. Owing to failure on the part of defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar as addressee to issue any reply or statement to the proposals of plaintiff Benjamin V. Guiang contained in his letter Annex 'H,' the latter became constrained to file a criminal complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Davao del Sur charging defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar as respondent with violation of the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code; copies of said complaint together with its supporting affidavits of complainant's

witnesses are hereto attached, marked respectively as Annexes 'I,' 'I-I,' 'I-2' and 'I-3,' and made integral parts of this pleading; "5. On July 5, 1978, Special Counsel Pacifico A. Villaluz as Investigating Fiscal issued an Order summoning both complainant Benjamin V. Guiang and respondent Filomeno C. Kintanar to appear at his office at Digos, Davao del Sur, on August 3, 1978, at 3:00 p.m., for clarificatory questions on the facts and circumstances of the above-mentioned criminal complaint in relation to Section 122 of Commonwealth Act 141; copy of the aforesaid Order of Special Counsel Villaluz is hereto attached, marked as Annex 'J', and made integral part of this Opposition; "6. On July 12, 1978, the Legal Division, Bureau of Lands, in response to a letter containing a legal query posed by plaintiff Benjamin V. Guiang, issued an opinion on the following points by means of the instant pleading presented before this Honorable Court, pertinent portions quoted for purposes of emphasis as follows: a. '. cra . After a public land has been titled under the provisions of the Public Land Act cranad(Commonwealth Act No. 141) as amended, the same, for all legal intents and purposes, becomes a private agricultural land subject, however, to the restrictions contained in Section 29, 118, 119, 121 and 122 of the said Act.' b. '. cra . imply stated, an individual cannot acquire either by sale, transfer, assignment or lease, lands originally acquired under the free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 if the total area of such acquisition added to his present landholdings exceeds one hundred forty-four hectares. cra . ' c. '. cra . It must follow as a matter of course that since January 17, 1973 when the New Constitution went into full force, the maximum area of patented or titled land that an individual can acquire is only such as will not exceed twenty-four cranad(24) hectares including his present landholdings. With these premises, It is our considered opinion that the maximum area that an individual could acquire under Article 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, has been amended or reduced to 24 hectares as provided for under Section 11, Article XIV, of the 1973 Constitution.' Copies of the letter of plaintiff Guiang dated July 10, 1978 and the Opinion rendered by the Legal Department, Bureau of Lands, dated July 12, 1978 are attached, marked respectively as Annexes 'K' and 'K-1 ' and made integral parts of this pleading; "7. On the scheduled August 3, 1978 hearing date, complainant and respondent both appeared before Investigating Fiscal Villaluz and in such hearing the following facts and points were clarified, established and/or admitted by the parties therein, to wit: a. That respondent Filomeno C. Kintanar, in addition to the 29 hectares acquired by him through homestead patent, is in actual possession of an additional 146 hectares of land originally acquired under Sales Patent from the government under the provisions of the Public Land Act;

b. That of this mentioned 146 hectares of land, 2 lots with an area of 24 hectares each, or a total of 48 hectares, were already transferred and registered with the office of the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur in the name of respondent Filomeno C. Kintanar by virtue of a Deed of Sale; c. That respondent Kintanar admitted having executed an affidavit on September 1, 1975 in which respondent stated, among other things, the following: 'That, both my wife and I don't possess lands more than what the constitution or the law authorizes.' d. That said affidavit was actually presented sometime in September 1975 by respondent Kintanar with the Register of Deeds of Davao del Sur in compliance with registration requirements of that office preparatory to effecting registration of such Deed of Sale, cancelling the subsisting certificate of title in the names of complainant and his spouse as Vendors, and effecting transfer of title to his namecranad(respondent) as Vendee; e. That complainant duly furnished the Investigating Fiscal and respondent Kintanar with the Opinion rendered by the Legal Division, Bureau of Lands, dated July 12, 1978, copy already attached and marked Annex 'K' of this pleading, pertinent portion quoted as follows: 'As regards your third question on whether the maximum area that an individual could acquire under section 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, has been amended from 144 to 24 hectares our reply is in the affirmative . cra .' Copy of the aforementioned affidavit executed by respondent Kintanar bearing date of September 1, 1975 is hereto attached, marked as Annex 'L' and made an integral part of this Opposition. "8. Upon another letter query addressed by plaintiff Benjamin V. Guiang to the Chief, Legal Department, Bureau of Lands, copy furnished the Land Management Division of that Bureau anent the issue of whether in the interpretation of section 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended by section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, husband and wife are to be considered as one person or single citizen, the Chief, Legal Division, Bureau of Lands, replied, among others, in this wise: 'For the purpose of ascertaining the maximum acreage of twenty-fourcranad(24) hectares of patented lands originally covered by a sales patent under section 122 of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended by the 1973 Constitution that any Filipino citizen could acquire or possess including his present landholdings, husband and wife are to be considered as a single citizen.' "Xerox copies of said plaintiff's letter query dated September 14, 1978 and the reply letter of the Chief, Legal Division, Bureau of Lands dated September 19, 1978 are hereto attached, marked respectively as Annexes 'M' and 'M-1' and made integral parts of this pleading; "9. On two cranad(2) substantial issues covered in the foregoing cited opinions issued by the Legal Division, Bureau of Lands, a communication incorporating the latest statement of official policy of that Bureau has evolved in the form of a recent letter addressed to plaintiff Guiang, substantial portions quoted as follows:

"ON WHETHER HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONLY ONE PERSON FOR PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING SEC. 122 OF C.A. 141: 'In reply to your letter dated September 14, 1978 requesting information regarding the interpretation, is based on the legal principle that a legally married couple is considered as only one person and property acquired by them during their marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership.' "ON THE MAXIMUM AREA OF PUBLIC LANDS THAT CAN BE ACQUIRED BY A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES: 'It is also the policy of this Office that the maximum area that can be acquired by an individual under the same Section has been accordingly reduced from 144 to 24 hectares in line with the provision of the New Constitution reducing the area that can be purchased by an individual to only 24 hectares.' "Copy of such communication issued by Director of Lands Ramon N. Casanova dated September 20, 1978 is attached, marked Annex 'N' and made integral part of this pleading. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT "Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as Public Land Act, provides: 'Sec. 122. Except in cases of hereditary succession, no land or any portion thereof originally acquired under the free patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of this act, or any permanent improvement on such land shall be transferred or assigned to any individual, nor shall such land or any permanent improvement thereon be leased to such individual when the area of said land, added to that of his own, shall exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares. Any transfer, assignment or lease in violation hereof shall be null and void.cralaw cranad(Emphasis supplied.) "The 1973 Constitution of the Philippines provides in its ARTICLE XIV the following, to wit: 'Sec. 11. The National Assembly, taking into account conservation, ecological, and developmental requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of lands of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to, any individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor. No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area; nor may any citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire by purchase or homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. No private corporation or association may hold by lease, concession, license, or permit timber or forest lands and other timber or forest resources in excess of one hundred thousand hectares; however, such area may be increased by the National Assembly upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority.cralawcranad(Emphasis supplied.) CONVEYANCE VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION

Relief sought by means of petition at bar contrary to terms of compromise agreement "A perusal of the Compromise Agreement entered into between the parties and approved by the Court in its Decision will show that the supposed vendees of the six cranad(6) lots subject thereof are none other than the spouses Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar; yet in their proposed Deed of Sale, reiterated once more in another way thru their petition at bar, defendants demand from plaintiffs under pain of contempt the execution in their favor of the necessary deed of conveyance over the remaining four cranad(4) lots, known as Lots 'B-1' and 'B-2' covered by Sales Patent 2521 and O.C.T. No. 12281, and Lots 'A-2' and 'A-3' covered by Sales Patent 3180 and O.C.T. No. 16465. This is plain from a comparison of the proposed vendees specified by defendants in their petition at bar with those mentioned in their proposed Deed of Sale, Annex 'H-1', thus: "Petition At Bar. Lot 'B-1' to Corazon B. Kintanar Lot 'B-2' to Corazon B. Kintanar Lot 'A-2' to Filomeno C. Kintanar Lot 'A-3' to Fil-Roger B. Kintanar Lot 'B-1' to Corazon B. Kintanar Lot 'B-2' to Fil-Roger Kintanar Lot 'A-2' to Cora-Ann B. Kintanar Lot 'A-3' to Cora-Lou B. Kintanar "As to the execution of a Deed of Sale by plaintiffs in favor of defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar over Lot 'A-2' with an area of 25 hectares, plaintiffs respectfully submit that this just cannot be legally done for such would be violative of the aforestated Section 122 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, in correlation with the provisions of Section 11, Article XIV, 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, which took effect January 17, 1973. The maximum area of public land that under the Constitution could be acquired, either by sale, transfer or assignment after such date by any citizen of the Philippines, including said defendant, is 24 hectares, including all his present landholdings. "Same is true with respect to any conveyance proposed to be made in the proposed Deed of Sale in favor of defendant Corazon B. Kintanar over Lot 'B-1' with an area of 24 hectares which, as earlier contended, will likewise be null and void for being violative of Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, amending Section 122 of C.A. No. 141. And with more reason since, as admitted by defendant Kintanar as respondent before the Davao Special Counsel, upon the effective date of the 1973 Constitution he and his wife were already themselves holders of 29 hectares of land of the public

domain originally granted to them thru a homestead patent. And following the Opinions or statements respectively rendered by the Chief, Legal Division, as well as the Director of the Bureau of Lands, Annexes 'M-1' and 'N', defendants-spouses are, for purposes of the Public Land Act, to be considered as a 'single citizen' or as 'only one person', such that they are both barred from acquiring by sale or homestead even a single square meter more of public land. "And it is plain from paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the Compromise Agreement that the Spouses Kintanar as defendants are the only intended vendees of Lots 'B-1', B-2', 'A-2' and 'A-3'. Likewise plain it is that defendants Cora Ann, Cora-Lou, and Fil-Roger, all surnamed Kintanar, as equally interested parties to the petition at bar, by having also affixed their respective signatures to the Compromise Agreement, have expressly waived whatever rights they may have over any of the 6 lots subject-matter of the three cranad(3) cases at bar. Such express waiver is found in par. 6 of said compromise agreement, pertinent portion quoted as follows: '6. That this Compromise Agreement hereby supersedes all other agreements, contracts to sell and other documents pertaining to the lots in question.' "Compromise Agreement Void Insofar as same provides for sale to defendants-spouses Kintanar "As stated earlier, the Compromise Agreement provides for a sale by plaintiffs to defendants-spouses Kintanar of six cranad(6) lots which have a total area of 146 hectares of the lands covered by Sales Patents originally acquired by individual purchase by plaintiffs from the government before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. "Following the mandate of Sec. 122 of C.A. 141 which provides that 'Any transfer, assignment or lease in violation hereof shall be null and void,' it inevitably follows that the compromise agreement, insofar as it requires the doing of a prohibited act, such as a sale in favor of certain disqualified persons, is null and void. And any decision approving the same must likewise, and necessarily so, be, considered null, following the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in one case: 'A void judgment or order is in legal effect no judgment or order.cralawcranad(Paredes v. Moya, 61 SCRA 526). Thus it is plain that execution may not issue based upon a void compromise agreement, even if the same bears approval by the court, on account of want of jurisdiction. "Due to the foregoing reasons, plaintiff-spouses Aurelio V. Hiquiana and Pastora O. Hiquiana similarly contend and submit that they, too, cannot be compelled to execute the Deed of Sale demanded of them by defendants by means of the petition at bar. "Plaintiffs under the circumstances not liable for contempt "Assuming as contended by counsel for defendants in their petition at bar, without, however, conceding as true, that plaintiffs have unjustly disobeyed the decision of this Honorable Court commanding the execution of certain deeds of conveyance of real property in favor of defendants-movants as provided in

the compromise agreement, yet plaintiffs submit that such act or omission on their part should not necessarily render them liable for contempt. Defendants-movants have not shown in any manner whatever that plaintiffs and only plaintiffs can perform the acts being insisted upon, to the exclusion of all others. Our Supreme Court has had occasion to explain when a disobedient party is not liable for contempt in those cases where the court itself may direct that the specific act or acts subject of the order be done by some designated person, thus: 'Section 9, Rule 39, in connection with Section 7 of Rule 71, provides that if a person is required by a judgment or order of the court to perform any other act than payment of money or sale or delivery of real or personal property, and said person disobeys said judgment or order while it is yet in his power to perform it, he may be punished for contempt and imprisonment until he performs said order. The provision is applicable only to specific acts which the party or person must personally do, because his personal qualification and circumstances have been taken into consideration in accordance with the provision of Article 1161 of the Civil Code. But if a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform specific acts which may be performed by some other persons or in some other ways provided for by law with the same effect as in the present case, section 10 not section 9 of Rule 39 applies; and under the provision of said section 10 the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed or designated by the court and the act when so done shall have the effect as if done by the party himself.cralaw cranad(Emphasis supplied.) "COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THOUGH VOID AS A SALE MAY YET BE UPHELD AS A LEASE "As the parties are well aware, the subject-matter of the Compromise Agreement and decision in the three cranad(3) above-captioned civil cases concerns certain titled or patented lands of the public domain originally acquired from the government which have a total area of 146 hectares. It appearing that defendants-spouses were already holders of some 29 hectares of public land acquired before the effective date of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, they are, however, barred or inhibited from acquiring by sale, transfer or assignment even one single square meter of the 146 hectares of land subject of the compromise agreement in the above-entitled cases. In view of this state of affairs, plaintiffs venture to ask: In view of their having already received the amount of P220,000.00 from defendants pursuant to a void compromise agreement, how could the ends of law and justice be served, in all fairness to the defendants? It is respectfully submitted that the only lawful, constitutional and logical way to give effect to the obligations and situation generated by the compromise agreement is this: to consider or treat the same as a lease contract or agreement, with the amounts paid by defendants treated as lease rentals or advances to plaintiffs under a continuing lease. "In this connection it may be recalled that plaintiffs-spouses and defendants-spouses Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar originally had in mind the possession by the latter of the six cranad(6) lots subject matter of the compromise agreement in concept of lease. There are indicated or shown by the following:

"a. On December 4, 1972 plaintiffs Spouses Guiang and defendant Corazon B. Kintanar, acting for her children Cora-Ann, Cora-Lou, Fil-Roger and herself, with the marital consent of her husband Filomeno C. Kintanar, also a defendant in the above-entitled cases, executed an Agreement Of Purchase And Sale over Lots 'B-1', 'B-2', 'B-3' and 'B-4' in question with the following resolutory provision: '5. That failure of the vendees to pay the second and third installments as they fail due, shall cause the cancellation of this agreement . cra . and whatever improvements introduced by the vendees on said lots shall be considered rental and liquidated damages:cralaw cranad(Emphasis supplied.) (Please see Annex 'A' of the Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-19573) "On January 30, 1973, plaintiffs-spouses Aurelio V. Hiquiana and Pastora O. Hiquiana and defendant Filomeno C. Kintanar also executed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale over Lots 'A-2' and 'A-3' which, among others, contained the following conditions: '3. That the BUYER shall take possession of the property as a LESSOR until the entire purchase price is paid, for said property is leased by Atty. & Mrs. Benjamin V. Guiang up to December 31, 1973 from the SELLERS. "5. That in case the Buyer shall fail to pay two consecutive installments due, all rights and interests of said Buyer in and to the above-mentioned property shall ipso facto, cease and terminate and all payments made by him prior to said default be deemed forfeited and waived in favor of the SELLERS in settlement of rents and liquidated damages.cralaw cranad(Emphasis supplied.) "(Please see copy of said Agreement Of Purchase and Sale already attached as Annex 'A' of the Complaint in Civil Case No Q-19574). "Plaintiffs filed the above-captioned Civil Cases Nos. Q-19573 and Q-19574 against defendants for the enforcement of the above-mentioned resolutory conditions or penal provisions of the above-mentioned Agreements of Purchase and Sale by the terms of which said agreements were deemed cancelled, with all installments paid to plaintiffs considered payments of rentals and damages, defendants having failed to pay the specified installments as they fell due. "As to what will be the reasonable rentals of the said six cranad(6) lots subject matter of said cases and the compromise agreement, plaintiffs respectfully submitted that this be fixed at the stipulated seventy percent cranad(70%) of the gross produce or income of the lands, minus payments already advanced to plaintiffs, considering the intention of the parties as indicated in their management contract dated February 15, 1973 which concerns lands adjoining the six cranad(6) lots herein. cranad(Please see copy of Management Contract, copy attached as Annex 'A' to the Complaint in Civil Case No Q-19572). "The payments made to plaintiffs in concept of the purchase price under the compromise agreement by defendants Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar in the total amount of P220,000.00 can and may be treated instead as payment of reasonable rentals for the use and occupancy by defendants of the six cranad(6) lots subject matter of said agreement, together with all previous amounts paid since February 15, 1973, considering that defendants have since such date admittedly been and continue to

remain in exclusive possession thereof up to this very day. Of course, this would be understood as subject to the reservation on the part of plaintiffs of the right to demand an accounting of the produce handled by defendants during such period. Preliminary Hearing Essential "In view of the foregoing situation, this Honorable Court may, serve the ends of justice by directing the holding of a preliminary hearing to ascertain whether or not the compromise agreement is void, or whether the same subsist to bind the contracting parties insofar as concerns a lease of the lots covered by it. This course of action is suggested in view of the pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme Court in Iboleon v. Sison, 50 Phil. 281, where it held: 'A Judge of Court, which sets aside a judgment rendered upon the consent of parties and based on a compromise entered into by them, which was converted into such judgment, cannot modify nor reverse it without the consent of said parties, or without first having declared in an incidental preliminary hearing, that such compromise is vitiated by any of the grounds for nullity enumerated in Art. 1817 of the Civil Code.cralaw cranad(Emphasis supplied.) "Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution aforecited allows a citizen of the Philippines to acquire by lease up to five hundred cranad(500) hectares of lands of the public domain. Following the opinions rendered by the Legal Department, Bureau of Lands, Annexes 'K-1' and 'M', by implication Section 122 of C.A. No. 141 is deemed amended by the New Constitution in the sense that the new maximum limit as to the area of lands of the public domain that could be acquired under lease by an individual has been increased from the original limit of 144 hectares to 500 hectares as of the present. PRAYER "WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, plaintiffs in the threecranad(3) abovecaptioned civil cases most respectfully pray of this Honorable Court that: "1. The petition of defendants, insofar as it seeks to have plaintiffs as respondents declared in contempt of court or divested of title over Lots 'B-1,' 'B-2,' 'A-2' and 'A-3' be DENIED for lack of merit; "2. Plaintiffs be declared as being relieved and freed from the duty and responsibility of executing any deed of sale in favor of defendants under the compromise agreement and decision of this Honorable Court both dated August 20, 1975; "3. The Deed of Absolute Sale, Annex 'A' of this pleading, be declared null and void; "4. Defendants-spouses Filomeno C. Kintanar and Corazon B. Kintanar be ordered to execute, immediately and without unnecessary delay, a Deed of Reconveyance over the two cranad(2) lots subject-matter thereof, known as Lots 'B-3' and 'B-4,' in favor of plaintiffs-spouses Benjamin V. Guiang and Natividad H. Guiang;

"IN THE ALTERNATIVE, plaintiffs as respondents most respectfully pray that a preliminary hearing be conducted for the purpose of determining whether the compromise agreement dated August 20, 1973 as affirmed by the decision of this Honorable Court of same date is valid and enforceable either as a sale, or as a lease, or void ab initio and thereafter, the corresponding order or decision be rendered conformably with law and justice. "Such other reliefs and remedies as may be considered just, equitable, proper and constitutional in the premises are likewise prayed for. Quezon City . cra . Quezon City, Philippines, September 23, 1978. GUIANG & PRIMICIAS LAW OFFICES 43 Detroit St., Quezon City By: (Sgd.) BENJAMIN V. GUIANG and (Sgd.) JUAN A.B. PRIMICIAS Attorneys for the Plaintiffs" (Annex G, pp. 65-82, Record) Considering the foregoing quoted respective pleadings of the parties, what comes out as the basic question We are called upon to resolve is whether or not the compromise agreement in dispute was void ab initio. And We do not hesitate to say that the answer to that question is definitely in the affirmative or YES. Earlier, in resolving the first issue between the parties, as formulated by Us, We came to the inevitable conclusion that Section 122 of the Public Land Act has been amended by the 1973 Constitution by reducing the area of land acquired under the Act that could be transferred by any purchaser, patentee or homesteader to only 24 hectares instead of the 144 hectares allowed under the 1935 Constitution. Now, the compromise agreement, executed on August 20, 1975 and here in dispute, provides for the transfer of a total of 146 hectares. It inevitably follows then that said compromise agreement contravenes not only a statute but the fundamental law of the land. Adding to its being contrary to law, which undoubtedly is also covered by the public policy expressed in the Constitution, is the fact that private respondents, the Kintanars, already owned at the time of the agreement a lot of 29 hectares which they had acquired also from the government pursuant to the Public Land Act. Such being the situation, it is incontestable that under Paragraph cranad(1) of Article 1409 of the Civil Code said

agreement is "inexistent and void from the beginning" since its "object or purpose is contrary to law or public policy." It is of no consequence, pursuant to the same article, that petitioners, the Guiang spouses, executed on August 21, 1975, apparently in ratification of the impugned agreement, the deeds of sale covering the two lots already referred to and that petitioners actually received in part or in whole the money consideration stipulated therein, for according to the same Article 1409, contracts contemplated therein, as the one We are dealing with, "cannot be ratified nor the defense of its illegality be waived." Neither is it material, much less decisive, that petitioners had not earlier judicially moved to have the same annulled or set aside. Under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, "(t)he action or defense for declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe." In this connection, that is, as to the apparent delay in petitioners' invocation of the inexistence or nullity of the agreement oft referred to above, it is but meet to mention here, as somewhat of an added equitable consideration in favor of petitioners, that as related in their opposition quoted above, they realized or at least began to have apprehensions about the validity of what they had done practically before the ink with which they signed the agreement had dried. This is conceded, albeit not in so many words, by private respondents in their memorandum cranad(p. 14). Indeed, in an effort to have his misgivings verified, as early as September 22, 1975, petitioner Benjamin Guiang wrote the Commissioner of Land Registration relative thereto. Unfortunately for petitioners, in cavalier fashion, the Commissioner merely considered that the registration of the two deeds of sale covering Lots B-3 and B-4, OCT 12281 was already a fait accompli and like Pontius Pilate simply washed his hands off the matter. 1 Not contended with such official indifference to a matter of constitutional importance, petitioners sought redress from the Office of the President and the Department cranad(now Ministry) of Justice and lastly, the Director of Lands, who as already related earlier gave the opinion favorable to petitioners, which We have earlier quoted herein approvingly. Petitioners even went to the extent of filing a charge of perjury against respondents on account of their obviously false affidavit submitted to the Register of Deeds denying in effect the indisputable fact that they were already then the owners of more than 24 hectares of land acquired under the Public Land Act. Such criminal prosecution is still pending review in the Ministry of Justice. Notable, if not admirable, indeed, was the continuous, consistent and unrelenting effort of petitioners to rectify a constitutional misstep they had taken in rather hastily entering into the questioned compromise. That it may be said that they might have thought at the time that it was a fair bargain does not in law minimize the undeniable invalidity and contravention of public policy involved in their act. To be sure, We can believe that a judgment herein favorable to petitioners may result in material benefits to them, but such probable contingency is merely incidental and should not blur Our eyes in any degree to the matter of constitutional policy We are sworn to pursue and implement. B At this point, inasmuch as private respondents have taken the judicial initiative to try to enforce the agreement in dispute, or, in the words of petitioners "jumped the gun on them" by filing a motion for

execution, of necessity, We have to go into the application in these instant cases of the provisions, principles and jurisprudence regarding the doctrine We might briefly refer to as that of "in pari delicto." To start with, petitioners invoke not only Article 1416 of the Civil Code but also the ruling of this Court in the leading case of Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52 in support of their contention that the rule of in pari delicto is inapplicable to these cases, and, therefore, they may recover the abovementioned two lots, Lots B-3 and B-4, OCT 12281. Article 1416 provides: "ART. 1416. When the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by the law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has paid or delivered." This article, it is imperative to note, allows recovery of what has been paid or delivered pursuant to an inexistent contract only when the agreement chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(1) is not illegal per se but merely prohibited: cranad(2) the prohibition is for the protection of the plaintiffs and cranad(3) if public policy is enhanced thereby." Substantially, We may say, without the need of quoting therefrom, the foregoing postulation is what was applied by Us in the Philippine Banking case. Referring to the situation now before Us, there can be no doubt that upholding the petitioners would enhance the public policy expressed in the Constitution of limiting transfers of property acquired from the government to only 24 hectares as well as that implicit in the provision of the Public Land Act prohibiting any citizen from acquiring by purchase or homestead disposable public lands in excess of twenty-fourcranad(24) hectares. It may also be said that these limitations or prohibitions are intended for the protection of the actual landholder or transferor or vendor-to-be because it safeguards him, for one thing, against being more or less induced under certain circumstances to part with his holding thru importunings or other insiduous devices or schemes and, for another thing, he is enabled to work with peace of mind on his land and utilize the same for the purposes for which he had acquired it. In regard to the requirement that the agreement must not be illegal per se, it might be contended that Our holding that the compromise under consideration is contrary to public policy removes the recovery of the two delivered lots and the further non-enforcement of the impugned orders of the trial court from the application of Article 1416. We hold it is not so. Any act in violation of the limitations and prohibitions herein involved is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. An act or contract that is illegal per se is one that by universally recognized standards is inherently or by its very nature bad, improper, immoral or contrary to good conscience. On the other hand, what is contrary to public policy may not be necessarily universally so, for public policy, like public interest, whether expressed in a Constitution or in any statute or official declaration of the duly constituted authorities or evinced from the situation or circumstances of the time concerned, is something dictated by the conditions obtaining within each country or nation. Indeed, in respect to the very matter under discussion, namely, the limitation and control of the disposition of lands of the public domain, every government in the world can have its own distinct policy suitable and peculiar to its internal interest including the history, mores, customs and traditions of the people thereof. For instance, the provisions of our Constitution and our laws covering such matter and the others relative to the conservation of our natural resources exclusively for us,

Filipinos, are easily distinguishable from those of the Constitutions and laws of the United States, Russia, England, Singapore, Malaysia, etc., etc. Thus, the juridical concept of what is illegal per se cannot be necessarily equated with what is contrary to public policy in all instances. In the cases at bar, the disputed compromise agreement is contrary to the public policy embodied in our Constitution and the Public Land Act as amended by the former since January 17, 1973, but it is not illegal per se. Such may not be the case in other countries. Consequently, nothing objectionable, juridically speaking, lies in the way to having the prayer of petitioners granted. Since they are not, in terms of the in pari delictodoctrine and under the facts of these cases, the ones trying to enforce an agreement contrary to the public policy of our Charter and our laws, such circumstance that they are the ones resisting the invocation of said doctrine is what makes their posture more legally tenable. As already stated earlier, under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, "the action or defense for the declaration of inexistence of a contract does not prescribe" just as under Article 1409, "(n)either can the right to set up such defense of illegality be waived." From which it is clearly implicit that one against whom the doctrine is invoked may deny its application whether he be plaintiff or defendant, or the movant or oppositor. Here, private respondents are the movants for enforcement. We hold that as oppositors to such motion, petitioners are in the right in putting up the defense that the agreement and orders sought to be enforced are contrary to public policy and that the said agreement is not illegal per se, hence, Article 1416 affords relief to them. C Having arrived at the foregoing conclusions, it follows necessarily that the fact that private respondents cannot deny that on August 20, 1975, they were already the holders of a torrens title over 29 hectares of land acquired by them by virtue of the Public Land Act from disposable lands of the public domain, is a total bar to the enforcement of the orders they are seeking, and this is the reason why We cannot just reduce the 146 hectares under litigation to only 24 hectares, which would have been legally possible, if private respondents' situation were otherwise. But able counsel for private respondents would try to save their case by inviting our attention to the fact that the original contracts of conveyance between the parties were entered into prior to January 17, 1973. No matter. Those contracts are not the ones involved here. What is here in question is the compromise agreement of August 20, 1975 which precisely and pointedly provides that "the Agreement shall supersede all other agreements, contracts to sell and other documents pertaining to the lots in question," for which reason the only parties-ininterest to the instant proceeding have become exclusively herein petitioners and respondents and none others, particularly, the children of the Kintanars, notwithstanding their having been parties in Civil Case No. Q-19573 of the trial court, as original purchasers. D Petitioners suggest that to avoid entire invalidity of the questioned agreement, it be construed merely as a lease. We are loath to follow the suggestion for the simple reason that it is juridically doubtful how a contract worded in the clearest tenor as one of transfer or conveyance of the title or ownership of the property concerned itself could be construed as merely a lease thereof. We believe and so hold that it

would be simplest and best to let the natural consequence of the constitutional invalidity, which We here declare, of the compromise agreement and of the decision based thereon as well as the subsequent orders of execution of such decision be allowed to follow its natural course. By this is meant that: cranad(1) the private respondents, the Kintanar spouses shall reconvey to petitioners, the Guiang spouses, the two lots, Lots B-3 and B-4 previously covered by OCT 12281 without any compensation but solely by virtue of this judgment; cranad(2) the petitioners shall retain the remaining lots, Lots B-1 and B-2 covered also by OCT 12281 and Lots A-2 and A-3 covered by OCT 16465, without any obligation to convey the same to private respondents, or, to put it the other way, private respondents may not compel the petitioners or any of them, judicially or otherwise, to convey to them cranad(private respondents) much less to any of the latter's children any of the lots or lands aforementioned; and cranad(3) instead of considering whatever private respondents have paid not only under the contracts hereby invalidated but also under the original transaction between the parties, the same should be deemed as damages due petitioners for their inability to have possession of the lands herein involved up to the time the judgment herein is complied with, at the rate of Fifty Thousand cranad(P50,000.00) Pesos a year from August 20, 1975. In this connection, the petition alleges that only P240,000.00 have been paid by private respondents, albeit a higher figure is vaguely alleged in the later pleadings of petitioners, and petitioners estimate the rentals, if We should accept the theory of lease proposed by them, to be P736,000.00 up to the present. We are not inclined to accept those figures. We are more impressed by the allegation on page 3 of private respondents' memorandum that they have fully paid the P220,000.00 consideration stipulated in the compromise in addition to P136,000.00 they had already previously paid under the contracts that became the subject of the three cases that were precisely attempted to be compromised on August 20, 1975. We are also inclined to accept as more reasonable the P50,000.00 estimate made by private respondents of the net yearly yield of the lands in dispute. With the foregoing view We have taken of these cases now before Us, We see no need to resolve the other issues discussed by the parties in their memoranda and motions. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the herein petition and declaring the rights of the parties to be as they are stated above in the paragraph preceding the penultimate one of the above opinion. Costs against private respondents. It is so ordered.
G.R. No. 135385 December 6, 2000

ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, respondents. HON. JUAN M .FLAVIER, HON. PONCIANO BENNAGEN, BAYANI ASCARRAGA, EDTAMI MANSAYANGAN, BASILIO WANDAG, EVELYN DUNUAN, YAOM TUGAS, ALFREMO CARPIANO, LIBERATO A. GABIN, MATERNIDAD M. COLAS, NARCISA M. DALUPINES, BAI KIRAM-CONNIE SATURNO, BAE MLOMO-BEATRIZ T. ABASALA, DATU BALITUNGTUNGANTONIO D. LUMANDONG, DATU MANTUMUKAW TEOFISTO SABASALES, DATU

EDUAARDO BANDA, DATU JOEL UNAD, DATU RAMON BAYAAN, TIMUAY JOSE ANOY, TIMUAY MACARIO D. SALACAO, TIMUAY EDWIN B. ENDING, DATU SAHAMPONG MALANAW VI, DATU BEN PENDAO CABIGON, BAI NANAPNAY-LIZA SAWAY, BAY INAY DAYA-MELINDA S. REYMUNDO, BAI TINANGHAGA HELINITA T. PANGAN, DATU MAKAPUKAW ADOLINO L. SAWAY, DATU MAUDAYAW-CRISPEN SAWAY, VICKY MAKAY, LOURDES D. AMOS, GILBERT P. HOGGANG, TERESA GASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN, MIA GRACE L. GIRON, ROSEMARIE G. PE, BENITO CARINO, JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES, LYNETTE CARANTES-VIVAL, LANGLEY SEGUNDO, SATUR S. BUGNAY, CARLING DOMULOT, ANDRES MENDIOGRIN, LEOPOLDO ABUGAN, VIRGILIO CAYETANO, CONCHITA G. DESCAGA, LEVY ESTEVES, ODETTE G. ESTEVEZ, RODOLFO C. AGUILAR, MAURO VALONES, PEPE H. ATONG, OFELIA T. DAVI, PERFECTO B. GUINOSAO, WALTER N. TIMOL, MANUEL T. SELEN, OSCAR DALUNHAY, RICO O. SULATAN, RAFFY MALINDA, ALFREDO ABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB, MIRLANDO H. MANGKULINTAS, SAMIE SATURNO, ROMEO A. LINDAHAY, ROEL S. MANSANG-CAGAN, PAQUITO S. LIESES, FILIPE G. SAWAY, HERMINIA S. SAWAY, JULIUS S. SAWAY, LEONARDA SAWAY, JIMMY UGYUB, SALVADOR TIONGSON, VENANCIO APANG, MADION MALID, SUKIM MALID, NENENG MALID, MANGKATADONG AUGUSTO DIANO, JOSEPHINE M. ALBESO, MORENO MALID, MARIO MANGCAL, FELAY DIAMILING, SALOME P. SARZA, FELIPE P. BAGON, SAMMY SALNUNGAN, ANTONIO D. EMBA, NORMA MAPANSAGONOS, ROMEO SALIGA, SR., JERSON P. GERADA, RENATO T. BAGON, JR., SARING MASALONG, SOLEDAD M. GERARDA, ELIZABETH L. MENDI, MORANTE S. TIWAN, DANILO M. MALUDAO, MINORS MARICEL MALID, represented by her father CORNELIO MALID, MARCELINO M. LADRA, represented by her father MONICO D. LADRA, JENNYLYN MALID, represented by her father TONY MALID, ARIEL M. EVANGELISTA, represented by her mother LINAY BALBUENA, EDWARD M. EMUY, SR., SUSAN BOLANIO, OND, PULA BATO B'LAAN TRIBAL FARMER'S ASSOCIATION, INTER-PEOPLE'S EXCHANGE, INC. and GREEN FORUM-WESTERN VISAYAS, intervenors. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, intervenor. IKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and HARIBON FOUNDATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., intervenor. RESOLUTION PER CURIAM: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules). In its resolution of September 29, 1998, the Court required respondents to comment.1 In compliance, respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agency created under the IPRA to implement its provisions, filed on October 13, 1998 their Comment to the Petition, in which they defend the constitutionality of the IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. On October 19, 1998, respondents Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) filed through the Solicitor General a consolidated Comment. The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part.

On November 10, 1998, a group of intervenors, composed of Sen. Juan Flavier, one of the authors of the IPRA, Mr. Ponciano Bennagen, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and the leaders and members of 112 groups of indigenous peoples (Flavier, et. al), filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene. They join the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of IPRA and praying for the dismissal of the petition. On March 22, 1999, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed a Motion to Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. The CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples. For this reason it prays that the petition be dismissed. On March 23, 1999, another group, composed of the Ikalahan Indigenous People and the Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a motion to Intervene with attached Comment-in-Intervention. They agree with the NCIP and Flavier, et al. that IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandamus be dismissed. The motions for intervention of the aforesaid groups and organizations were granted. Oral arguments were heard on April 13, 1999. Thereafter, the parties and intervenors filed their respective memoranda in which they reiterate the arguments adduced in their earlier pleadings and during the hearing. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution: "(1) Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, and Section 3(b) which, in turn, defines ancestral lands; "(2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable public lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community property of the indigenous peoples; "(3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands; "(4) Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains; (5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands; "(6) Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains, and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years; and

"(7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or reforestation."2 Petitioners also content that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of "ancestral domains" and "ancestral lands" which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the rights of private landowners.3 In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution.4 These provisions are: "(1) sections 51 to 53 and 59 which detail the process of delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and which vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral lands; "(2) Section 52[i] which provides that upon certification by the NCIP that a particular area is an ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of Justice and Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, the jurisdiction of said officials over said area terminates; "(3) Section 63 which provides the customary law, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples; "(4) Section 65 which states that customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes involving indigenous peoples; and "(5) Section 66 which vests on the NCIP the jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of the indigenous peoples."5 Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which provides that "the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination." They contend that said Rule infringes upon the Presidents power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.6 Petitioners pray for the following: "(1) A declaration that Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59, 63, 65 and 66 and other related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional and invalid; "(2) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Chairperson and Commissioners of the NCIP to cease and desist from implementing the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371 and its Implementing Rules;

"(3) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cease and desist from implementing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Circular No. 2, series of 1998; "(4) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of Budget and Management to cease and desist from disbursing public funds for the implementation of the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371; and "(5) The issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to comply with his duty of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization and conservation of Philippine natural resources."7 After due deliberation on the petition, the members of the Court voted as follows: Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Kapunan filed an opinion, which the Chief Justice and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions of R.A. 8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged provisions of the law with the exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to question the constitutionality of R.A. 8371. Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the law, which he believes must await the filing of specific cases by those whose rights may have been violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon join in the separate opinions of Justices Panganiban and Vitug. As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED. Attached hereto and made integral parts thereof are the separate opinions of Justices Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Panganiban. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 133047. August 17, 1999]

HEIRS OF LORENZO YAP, namely SALLY SUN YAP, MARGARET YAPUY and MANUEL YAP, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON YAP and BENJAMIN YAP, respondents. DECISION
VITUG, J.:

What in essence petitioners seek is the enforcement of an alleged trust agreement between Lorenzo Yap, now deceased, and his brothers Ramon and Benjamin, herein co-respondents, covering a piece of land and its improvement. The case and factual settings found by the Court of Appeals do not appear to deviate significantly from that priorly made by the trial court. Sometime in February 1966, Ramon Yap purchased a parcel of land situated at 123 (formerly 75) Batanes Street, Galas, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 82001/T-414, from the spouses Carlos and Josefina Nery. The lot was thereupon registered in the name of Ramon Yap under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 102132; forthwith, he also declared the property in his name for tax purposes and paid the real estate taxes due thereon from 1966 to 1992. In 1967, Ramon Yap constructed a two storey 3-door apartment building for the use of the Yap family. One-fifth (1/5) of the cost of the construction was defrayed by Ramon Yap while the rest was shouldered by Chua Mia, the mother of Lorenzo, Benjamin and Ramon. Upon its completion, the improvement was declared for real estate tax purposes in the name of Lorenzo Yap in deference to the wishes of the old woman. Lorenzo Yap died on 11 July 1970. A few months later, his heirs (herein petitioners) left their family dwelling in Lucena City to reside permanently in Manila. Ramon Yap allowed petitioners to use one unit of the apartment building. On 18 March 1992, Ramon Yap sold the land and his share of the 3-door apartment to his brother, his herein co-respondent Benjamin Yap, for the sum of P337,500.00 pursuant to a Deed of Sale, recorded on even date in the Memorandum of Encumbrances of the title to said property. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 73002 was in due time issued in the name of Benjamin Yap. The controversy started when herein petitioners, by a letter of 08 June 1992, advised respondents of the formers claim of ownership over the property and demanded that respondents execute the proper deed necessary to transfer the title to them. At about the same time, petitioners filed a case for ejectment against one of the bonafide tenants of the property. On 29 July 1992, respondents filed an action with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed Civil Case No. Q-92-12899, for quieting of title against petitioners. In their answer, petitioners averred that sometime in 1966 the spouses Carlos and Josefina Nery offered to sell the disputed parcel of land to their predecessor-in-interest, Lorenzo Yap, for the sum of P15,000.00. Since Lorenzo and his wife Sally Yap were at that time Chinese citizens, Lorenzo requested his brother Ramon to allow the use of the latters name in the purchase, registration, and declaration for tax purposes of the subject lot to which Ramon Yap consented. It was agreed that the property would remain registered in the name of Ramon Yap until such time as Lorenzo would have acquired Philippine citizenship but that, should Lorenzo predecease, the lot would then be transferred to Lorenzos heirs upon the latters

naturalization. Petitioners contended that it was Lorenzo who had caused the construction of the 3-door apartment on the property, merely entrusting the money therefor to Ramon Yap. The death of Lorenzo in 1970 prompted petitioners to move in and occupy the apartment and the lot, without any objection from Ramon and Benjamin, although the latter were allowed to stay in the premises since they had no other place to live in. In 1991, petitioners acquired Philippine citizenship and, forthwith, they requested Ramon Yap to have the title to the lot transferred to their names but to their chagrin they discovered that Ramon had sold the lot to his co-respondent Benjamin. Assessing the evidence before it, the trial court found for the respondents and adjudged Benjamin Yap to be the true and lawful owner of the disputed property. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and debunked the claim of petitioners that Ramon Yap was merely so used as a dummy by Lorenzo Yap. Giving full weight and credit to the Deed of Sale executed by the Nery spouses in favor of Ramon Yap, the appellate court stressed that to overcome the presumption of regularity in the execution of a public document, the evidence to the contrary should be clear and convincing even as it was equally incumbent upon petitioners to show that the subsequent sale of the property to Benjamin had only been simulated and fictitious. The appellate court, however, deleted the award of attorneys fees in favor of respondents for, in its view, it was not adequately shown that petitioners had acted in bad faith in pursuing their case. Petitioners are now before this Court seeking a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and contending that-

I THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT HOLDS THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FATHER, LORENZO YAP, BEING CHINESE CAN NOT ENTER INTO A TRUST AGREEMENT AND THE EXISTENCE OF A TRUST AGREEMENT CAN NOT BE PROVEN BEING CHINESE. II THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT HOLDS THAT THE FAILURE TO SHOW WRITTEN TRUST AGREEMENT RENDERS THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE BY NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME AS ONE UNDER IMPLIED TRUST. III THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT HOLDS THAT PAROL EVIDENCE AND/OR STATUTE OF FRAUDS APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BAR.

IV THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT HOLDS THAT APPELLANTS HAVE TO REFUTE THE DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY THE NERY SPOUSES IN FAVOR OF RAMON YAP BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ADMISSION OF THE SAID DEED OF SALE. V THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER THAT IN TRUST THE TITLE IS IN THE NAME OF THE TRUSTEE AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE NAKED OWNER. VI THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HOLDS THAT RAMON YAP CAN NOT BE A DUMMY OF LORENZO YAP BEING ALIEN AND DISQUALIFIED TO OWN REAL PROPERTY. VII THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE TITLE IN THE NAME OF RAMON YAP VOID BEING ACQUIRED AS DUMMY. VIII THAT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT BENJAMIN YAP HAS POSSESSION OF APARTMENT UNIT 123 LIKEWISE OWNERSHIP PERSONAL PROPERTIES THEREIN ON THE BASIS OF THE INVENTORY OF THE SHERIFF OF THE COURT A QUO BY WAY OF A SUBSEQUENT MANDATORY INJUNCTION WHICH WAS DENIED.[1]
The Court finds no merit in the appeal. To begin with, a brief discussion on the trust relation between two parties could be helpful. A trust may either be express or implied.[2] Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.[3] Implied trusts are those which, without being express, are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or, independently of the particular intention of the parties, as being superinduced on the transaction by operation of law basically by reason of equity.[4] These species of implied trust are ordinarily subdivided into

resulting and constructive trusts.[5] A resulting trust is one that arises by implication of law and presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found in the nature of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or instrument of conveyance.[6] Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that it is the more valuable consideration than the legal title that determines the equitable interest in property. [7]Upon the other hand, a constructive trust is a trust not created by any word or phrase, either expressly or impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but one that arises in order to satisfy the demands of justice. It does not come about by agreement or intention but in main by operation of law[8] construed against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.[9] One basic distinction between an implied trust and an express trust is that while the former may be established by parol evidence, the latter cannot. Even then, in order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol evidence, the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation are proven by an authentic document.[10] An implied trust, in fine, cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof.[11] Unfortunately for petitioners, the issues they submit in the case at bar boil down to the appreciation of the evidence presented. The Court of Appeals, sustaining the court a quo, has found the evidence submitted by petitioners to be utterly wanting,[12] consisting mainly of the self-serving testimony of Sally Yap. She herself admitted that the business establishment of her husband Lorenzo was razed by fire in 1964 that would somehow place to doubt the claim that he indeed had the means to purchase the subject land about two years later from the Nery spouses. Upon the other hand, Ramon Yap was by then an accountant with apparent means to buy the property himself. At all events, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, particularly when consistent with those made by the trial court, should deserve utmost regard when not devoid of evidentiary support. No cogent reason had been shown by petitioners for the Court to now hold otherwise. Not to be dismissed, furthermore, is the long standing and broad doctrine of clean hands that will not allow the creation or the use of a juridical relation, a trust whether express or implied included, to perpetrate fraud or tolerate bad faith nor to subvert, directly or indirectly, the law. The trust agreement between Ramon and Lorenzo, if indeed extant, would have been in contravention of, in fact, the fundamental law. Then Section 5, Article XIII, of the 1935 Constitution has provided that

Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.
The mandate has also been adopted in Section 14, Article XIV, of the 1973 Constitution and now reiterated under Section 7, Article XII, of the 1987 Constitution. A trust or a provision in the terms of a trust would be invalid if the enforcement of the trust or provision is against the law even though its performance does not involve the commission of a criminal or tortuous act. It likewise must follow that what the parties are not allowed to do expressly is one that they also may not do impliedly as, for instance, in the guise of a resulting trust.[13]

The foregoing disquisition renders unnecessary the resolution of the incidental issues raised in the petition. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals of 08 January 1998 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 46838 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001

ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YU LEE, HON. JUDGE JOSE D. ALOVERA,* Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Roxas City, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,* respondents. PARDO, J.: The case under consideration is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 of the court of appeals nullifying that of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, in Reconstitution case No. R1928,2 pertaining to lot 398, Capiz Cadastre, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389. Sometime in March 1936, Carmen, Francisco, Jr., Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Manuel, Rizal, and Jimmy, alll surnamed Dinglasan sold to Lee Liong, A Chinese citizen, a parcel of land with an approximate area of 1,631 square meters, designed as lot 398 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389, situated at the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia Street, Roxas City.3 However, in 1948, the former owners filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action against the heirs of Lee Liong for annulment of sale and recovery of land.4 The plaintiffs assailed the validity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring ownership of private agriculture land, including residential, commercial or industrial land. Rebuffed in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 27, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled thus: "granting the sale to be null and void and can not give title to the vendee, it does not necessarily follow therefrom that title remained in the vendor, who had also violated the constitutional prohibition, or that he (vendor) has the right to recover the title of which he has divested himself by his in ignoring the prohibition. In such contingency another principle of law sets in to bar the equally guilty vendor from recovering the title which he had voluntarily conveyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto."5 On July 1, 1968, the same former owners Rafael A. Dinglasan, together with Francisco, Carmen, Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Rizal, Jimmy, and Jesse Dinglasan filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action for recovery of the same parcel of land.6 Citing the case of the Philippines Banking Corporation v. Lui She,7 they submitted that the sale to Lee Liong was null and void for being violative of the Constitution. On September 23, 1968, the heirs of Lee Liong filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of res judicata.8 On October 10, 1968, and November 9, 1968, the trial court denied the motion.9The heirs of Lee Liong elevated

the case to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari. On April 22, 1977, the Supreme Court annulled the orders of the trial court and directed it to dismiss the case, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata.10 On September 7, 1993, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the regional Trial Court, Roxas City a petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No. 398 of the Capiz Cadastre, formerly covered by Original Certificate of title No. 3389 of the register of Deeds of Roxas City.11 Petitioners alleged that they were the windows of the deceased Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting , who were the heirs of Lee Liong, The owner of the lot. Lee Liong died intestate in February 1944. On June 30, 1947, Lee Liong's widow, Ang Chia, and his two sons, Lee Bun Ting and Lee Bing Ho, executed an extra judicial settlement of the state of Lee Liong, adjudicating to themselves the subject parcel of land.12 Petitioner Elizabeth Lee acquired her share in lot No. 398 through an extra-judicial settlement and donation executed in her favor by her deceased husband Lee Bong Hoo. Petitioner Pacita Yu Lee acquired her share in the same lot by succession from her deceased husband Lee Bun Ting, as evidenced by a deed of extra-judicial settlement.13 Previously, on December 9, 1948, the Register of Deeds, Capiz Salvador Villaluz, issued a certification that a transfer certificate of title over the property was issued in the name of Lee Liong.14 However, the records of the Register of Deeds, Roxas City were burned during the war. Thus, as heretofore stated, on September 7, 1968, petitioners filed a petition for reconstitution of title.
1wphi 1.nt

On June 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17, ordered the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title in the name of Lee Liong on the basis of an approved plan and technical description.15 The dispositive portion of the trial Court's decision reads thus: "WHEREFORE, in reiteration the Register of Deeds for the City of Roxas is ordered to reconstitute the lost or destroyed certificate of title in the name Lee Liong, deceased, of Roxas City, with all the conditions stated in paragraph 2 of this decision. This decision shall become final after the lapse of thirty (30) days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of LRA of a notice of such judgement without any appeal having been filed by any of such officials. "SO ORDERED. "Given at Roxas City, Philippines, "June 10, 1994. "JOSE O. ALOVERA "Judge"16 On August 18, 1994, the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17 issued an Entry of Judgement.17 On January 25, 1995, the Solicitor General filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgement in Reconstitution Case No. 1928, alleging that the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City had no jurisdiction over the case.18 The Solicitor General contended that the petitioners were not the proper parties in the reconstitution of title, since their predecessor-in-interest Lee Liong did not acquire title to the lot because he was a Chinese citizen and was constitutionally not qualified to own the subject land.

On April 30, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision declaring the judgement of reconstitution void.19 On May 24, 1996, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision. 20 On February 18, 19976, the Court of appeals denied the motion.21 Hence this petition.22 Petitioners submitted that the Solicitor General was estopped from seeking annulment of the judgement of reconstitution after failing to object during the reconstitution proceedings before the trial court, despite due notice. Petitioners alleged that the Solicitor General merely acted on the request of private and politically powerful individuals who wished to capitalize on the prime location of the subject land. Petitioners emphasized that the ownership of the land had been settled in two previous cases of the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, Lee Liong. Petitioners also pointed out that they acquired ownership of the land through actual possession of the lot and their consistent payment of taxes over the land for more than sixty years. On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that the decision in the reconstitution case was void; otherwise, it would amount to circumventing the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring ownership of private or public agricultural lands. We grant the petition. The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land23. The purpose of the reconstruction of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred.24 In this case, petitioners sought a reconstitution of title in the name of Lee Liong, alleging that the transfer of certificate of title issued to him was lost or destroyed during World War II. All the documents recorded and issued by the Register of Deed, Capiz, which include the transfer certificate of title issued in the name of Lee Liong, were all destroyed during the war. The fact that the original of the transfer certificate of title was not in the files of the Office of the Register of Deeds did not imply that a transfer certificate of title had not been issued.25 In the trial court proceeding, petitioners presented evidence proving the sale of the land from the Dinglasans to Lee Liong and the latter's subsequent possessions of the of the property in the concept of owner. Thus, the trial court after examining all the evidence before it, ordered the reconstruction of title in the name of Lee Liong. However, there is a question as to whether Lee Liong as the qualification to own land in the Philippines. The sale of the land in question was consummated sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution,26 aliens could not acquire private agricultural lands, save in cases of hereditary succession.27 Thus, Lee Liong, a chinese citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in question.28

The fact that the Court did not annul the sale of the land to an alien did not validate the transaction, for it was still contrary to the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring lands of the public or private domain. However, the proper party to assail the illegality of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction.29 "In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation and being thus in pari delicto the courts will not afford protection to either party."30 The proper party to assail the sale is the Solicitor General. This was what was done in this case when the Solicitor General initiated an action for annulment of judgment of reconstitution of title. While it took the Republic more than sixty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such action. Prescription never against the State.31 Although ownership of the land cannot revert to the original sellers, because of the doctrine of pari delicto, the Solicitor General may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State, subject to other defenses, as hereafter set forth.32 In this case, subsequent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands of Filipinos. The original vendee, Lee Liong, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and subsequently their heirs, petitioners herein. Petitioners are Filipino citizens, a fact the Solicitor General does not dispute. The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. In this case, however, there would be no more public policy violated since the land is in the hands of Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land. "If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.33 Thus, the subsequent transfer of the property to qualified Filipinos may no longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial transfer.34 The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved. Incidentally, it must be mentioned that reconstitution of the original certificate of title must be based on an owner's duplicate, secondary evidence thereof, or other valid sources of the title be reconstituted.35 In this case, reconstitution was based on the plan and technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority.36This renders the order of reconstitution void for lack of factual support.37 A judgment with absolute nothing to support it is void.38 As earlier mentioned, a reconstitution of the title is the reissuance of a new certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.39 It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title.40 Any change in the ownership of the property must be the subject of a separate suit.41 Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceedings is necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land. WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. SP No. 36274. In lieu thereof, the Court sets aside the order of reconstitution of title in Reconstitution Case No. R-1928, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, and dismisses the petition, without prejudice.
1wphi1.nt

No Cost. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-33048 April 16, 1982

EPIFANIA SARSOSA VDA. DE BARSOBIA and PACITA W. VALLAR , petitioners, vs. VICTORIANO T. CUENCO, respondent.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Sought to be reviewed herein is the judgment dated August 18, 1970, of the Court of Appeals, 1 rendered in CA-G.R. No. 41318-R, entitled "Victoriano T. Cuenco, Plaintiff-appellant, vs. Epifania Sarsosa Vda. de Barsobia and Pacita W. Vallar, Defendants- appellees, " declaring Victoriano T. Cuenco (now the respondent) as the absolute owner of the coconut land in question. The lot in controversy is a one-half portion (on the northern side) of two adjoining parcels of coconut land located at Barrio Mancapagao, Sagay, Camiguin, Misamis Oriental (now Camiguin province), with an area of 29,150 square meters, more or less. 2 The entire land was owned previously by a certain Leocadia Balisado, who had sold it to the spouses Patricio Barsobia (now deceased) and Epifania Sarsosa, one of the petitioners herein. They are Filipino citizens. On September 5, 1936, Epifania Sarsosa then a widow, sold the land in controversy to a Chinese, Ong King Po, for the sum of P1,050.00 (Exhibit "B"). Ong King Po took actual possession and enjoyed the fruits thereof. On August 5, 1961, Ong King Po sold the litigated property to Victoriano T. Cuenco (respondent herein), a naturalized Filipino, for the sum of P5,000.00 (Exhibit "A"). Respondent immediately took actual possession and harvested the fruits therefrom. On March 6, 1962, Epifania "usurped" the controverted property, and on July 26, 1962, Epifania (through her only daughter and child, Emeteria Barsobia), sold a one-half (1/2) portion of the land in question to Pacita W. Vallar, the other petitioner herein (Exhibit "2"). Epifania claimed that it was not her intention to sell the land to Ong King Po and that she signed the document of sale merely to evidence her indebtedness to the latter in the amount of P1,050.00. Epifania has been in possession ever since except for the portion sold to the other petitioner Pacita. On September 19, 1962, respondent filed a Forcible Entry case against Epifania before the Municipal Court of Sagay, Camiguin. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since, as the laws then stood, the question of possession could not be properly determined without first settling that of ownership. On December 27, 1966, respondent instituted before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental a Complaint for recovery of possession and ownership of the litigated land, against Epifania and Pacita Vallar (hereinafter referred to simply as petitioners). In their Answer below, petitioners insisted that they were the owners and possessors of the litigated land; that its sale to Ong King Po, a Chinese, was inexistent and/or void ab initio; and that the deed of sale between them was only an evidence of Epifania's indebtedness to Ong King Po. The trial Court rendered judgment:

1. Dismissing the complaint with costs against plaintiff (respondent herein). 2. Declaring the two Deeds of Sale, Exhibits A and B, respectively, inexistent and void from the beginning; and
3. Declaring defendant Pacita W. Vallar as the lawful owner and possessor of the portion of land she bought from Emeteria Barsobia (pp. 57, 67, Record.) 3

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the aforementioned Decision and decreed instead that respondent was the owner of the litigated property, thus: xxx xxx xxx In view of all the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed. In lieu thereof, we render judgment: (a) Declaring the plaintiff-appellant Victoriano T. Cuenco the absolute owner of the land in question, with the right of possession thereof; (b) Ordering the defendants-appellees to restore the possession of said land to the plaintiff; (c) Dismissing the defendants' counterclaim; (d) Condemning the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 representing the latter's share from the sale of copra which he failed to receive since March, 1962 when he was deprived of his possession over the land, and which defendants illegally appropriated it to their own use and benefit, plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid; plus P2,000.00 representing expenses and attorney's fees; (e) Sentencing the defendants to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 4

Following the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on certiorari with this Court on January 21, 1971. Petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals erred: I. ... when it reversed the judgment of the trial court declaring petitioner Pacita W. Vallar as the lawful possessor and owner of the portion of land she purchased from Emeteria Barsobia, not a party to this case, there being no evidence against her. II ... when it included petitioner Pacita W. Vallar to pay P10,000.00, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint, representing respondent's share in the harvest and to pay the costs, there being no evidence against her. III. ... when it condemned petitioners to pay P2,000.00 representing expenses and attorney's fees, there being no factual, legal and equitable justification.

IV. ... in not applying the rule on pari delicto to the facts of the case or the doctrine enunciated ... in the case of Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She, L-17587, September 12, 1967, to ... Petitioner Epifania Sarsosa Vda. de Barsobia.
V. ... in denying, for lack of sufficient merits, petitioners' motion for rehearing or reconsideration of its decision.5

As the facts stand, a parcel of coconut land was sold by its Filipino owner, petitioner Epifania, to a Chinese, Ong King Po, and by the latter to a naturalized Filipino, respondent herein. In the meantime, the Filipino owner had unilaterally repudiated the sale she had made to the Chinese and had resold the property to another Filipino. The basic issue is: Who is the rightful owner of the property? There should be no question that the sale of the land in question in 1936 by Epifania to Ong King Po was inexistent and void from the beginning (Art. 1409 [7], Civil Code) 6 because it was a contract executed against the mandatory provision of the 1935 Constitution, which is an expression of public policy to conserve lands for the Filipinos. Said provision reads:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations, qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. 7

Had this been a suit between Epifania and Ong King Po, she could have been declared entitled to the litigated land on the basis, as claimed, of the ruling in Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She, 8 reading: ... For another thing, and this is not only cogent but also important. Article 1416 of the Civil Code provides as an exception to the rule on pari delicto that when the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by the law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has sold or delivered. ... But the factual set-up has changed. The litigated property is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino. It is no longer owned by a disqualified vendee. Respondent, as a naturalized citizen, was constitutionally qualified to own the subject property. There would be no more public policy to be served in allowing petitioner Epifania to recover the land as it is already in the hands of a qualified person. Applying by analogy the ruling of this Court in Vasquez vs. Giap and Li Seng Giap & Sons: 9 ... if the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization. While, strictly speaking, Ong King Po, private respondent's vendor, had no rights of ownership to transmit, it is likewise inescapable that petitioner Epifania had slept on her rights for 26 years from 1936 to 1962. By her long inaction or inexcusable neglect, she should be held barred from asserting her claim to the litigated property (Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 157 [1978]). Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a

reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (Tijam, et al. vs. Sibonghanoy, et al., No. L21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29, 35). (cited in Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 154 [1978]). Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of the property. The award of actual damages in respondent's favor of P10,000.00, as well as of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation of P2,000.00, is justified. Respondent was deprived of the possession of his land and the enjoyment of its fruits from March, 1962. The Court of Appeals fixed respondent's share of the sale of copra at P10,000.00 for eight years at four (4) harvests a year. The accuracy of this finding has not been disputed. However, we find merit in the assigned error that petitioner, Pacita Vallar, should not be held also liable for actual damages to respondent. In the absence of contrary proof, she, too, must be considered as a vendee in good faith of petitioner Epifania. The award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the sum of P2,000.00 in respondent's favor is in order considering that both petitioners compelled respondent to litigate for the protection of his interests. Moreover, the amount is reasonable. 10 WHEREFORE, except for that portion holding petitioner, Pacita W. Vallar, also liable for damages of P10,000.00, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-31956 April 30, 1984 FILOMENA GERONA DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN TENG QUEEN TAN, TAN TENG BIO, DOLORES TAN, ROSARIO TAN HUA ING, and TO O. HIAP,respondents. Pascual G. Mier for petitioner. Eddie Tamondong for respondent Joaquin Teng Queen Tan. Carlos Buenviaje for respondent Tan Teng Bio. Arnulfo L. Perete for respondent Ong Shi (To O. Hiap).

PLANA, J.:

+.wph! 1

Review on certiorari of the order of the former Court of First Instance of Sorsogon dismissing petitioner's action for annulment of contract with damages.

In 1938, petitioner Filomena Gerona de Castro sold a 1,258 sq. m. residential lot in Bulan, Sorsogon to Tan Tai, a Chinese. In 1956, Tan Tai died leaving herein respondents his widow, To O. Hiap, and children Joaquin Teng Queen Tan, Tan Teng Bio, Dolores Tan and Rosario Tan Hua Ing. Before the death of Tan Tai or on August 11, 1956, one of his sons, Joaquin, became a naturalized Filipino. Six years after Tan Tai's death, or on November 18, 1962, his heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale, whereby the disputed lot in its entirety was alloted to Joaquin. On July 15, 1968, petitioner commenced suit against the heirs of Tan Tai for annulment of the sale for alleged violation of the 1935 Constitution prohibiting the sale of land to aliens. Except for respondent Tan Teng Bio who filed an answer to the complaint, respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of (a) lack of cause of action, the plaintiff being in pari delicto with the vendee, and the land being already owned by a Philippine citizen; (b) laches; and (c) acquisitive prescription. Over the opposition of petitioner, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, sustaining the first two grounds invoked by the movants. It is this order of dismissal that is now the subject of this review. The assailed order must be sustained. Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto, the petitioner cannot have the sale annulled and recover the lot she herself has sold. While the vendee was an alien at the time of the sale, the land has since become the property, of respondent Joaquin Teng, a naturalized Philippine citizen, who is constitutionally qualified to own land.
t.hqw

... The litigated property is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino. It is no longer owned by a disqualified vendee. Respondent, as a naturalized citizen, was constitutionally qualified to own the subject property. There would be no more public policy to be served in allowing petitioner Epifania to recover the land as it is already in the hands of a qualified person. Applying by analogy the ruling of this Court in Vasquez vs. Giap and Li Seng Giap & Sons:
t.hqw

... if the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization. (Sarsosa Vda. de Barsobia vs. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547, at 553.) Laches also militates against petitioner's cause. She sold the disputed lot in 1938. She instituted the action to annul the sale only on July 15, 1968. What the Court said in the cited Sarsosa case applies with equal force to the petitioner.
t.hqw

... it is likewise inescapable that petitioner Epifania had slept on her rights for 26 years from 1936 to 1962. By her long inaction of inexcusable neglect, she should be held barred from asserting her claim to the litigated property (Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 157 [1978]).
t.hqw

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (Tijam, et al. vs. Sibonghanoy, et al., No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29, 35). (cited in Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 154 [1978]). Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of the property. (p. 553.) WHEREFORE, the appealed order is affirmed. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
1w ph1.t

G.R. No. 108998 August 24, 1994 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MARIO B. LAPIA AND FLOR DE VEGA, respondents. Byron V. Belarmino and Juan B. Belarmino for private respondents.

BIDIN, J.: Can a foreign national apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines, from a vendor who has complied with the requirements for registration under the Public Land Act (CA 141)? The Republic would have us rule on the negative and asks this Court to nullify the decision of the appellate court which affirmed the judgment of the court a quo in granting the application of respondent spouses for registration over the lots in question. On June 17, 1978, respondent spouses bought Lots 347 and 348, Cad. s38-D, as their residence with a total area of 91.77 sq. m. situated in San Pablo City, from one Cristeta Dazo Belen (Rollo, p. 41). At the time of the purchase, respondent spouses where then natural-born Filipino citizens. On February 5, 1987, the spouses filed an application for registration of title of the two (2) parcels of land before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch XXXI. This time, however, they were no longer Filipino citizens and have opted to embrace Canadian citizenship through naturalization. An opposition was filed by the Republic and after the parties have presented their respective evidence, the court a quo rendered a decision confirming private respondents' title to the lots in question, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby approves the said application and confirms the title and possession of herein applicants over Lots 347

and 348, Ap-04-003755 in the names of spouses Mario B. Lapia and Flor de Vega, all of legal age, Filipino citizens by birth but now Canadian citizens by naturalization and residing at 14 A. Mabini Street, San Pablo City and/or 201-1170-124 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5M-OK9, Canada. Once this Decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued. In the certificate of title to be issued, there shall be annotated an easement of .265 meters road right-of-way. SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 25) On appeal, respondent court affirmed the decision of the trial court based on the following ratiocination: In the present case, it is undisputed that both applicants were still Filipino citizens when they bought the land in controversy from its former owner. For this reason, the prohibition against the acquisition of private lands by aliens could not apply. In justice and equity, they are the rightful owners of the subject realty considering also that they had paid for it quite a large sum of money. Their purpose in initiating the instant action is merely to confirm their title over the land, for, as has been passed upon, they had been the owners of the same since 1978. It ought to be pointed out that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. The Torrens System was not established as a means for the acquisition of title to private land. It is intended merely to confirm and register the title which one may already have (Municipality of Victorias vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31189, March 31, 1987). With particular reference to the main issue at bar, the High Court has ruled that title and ownership over lands within the meaning and for the purposes of the constitutional prohibition dates back to the time of their purchase, not later. The fact that the applicants-appellees are not Filipino citizens now cannot be taken against them for they were not disqualified from acquiring the land in question (Bollozos vs. Yu Tieng Su, G.R. No. L-29442, November 11, 1987). (Rollo, pp. 27-28) Expectedly, respondent court's disposition did not merit petitioner's approval, hence this present recourse, which was belatedly filed. Ordinarily, this petition would have been denied outright for having been filed out of time had it not been for the constitutional issue presented therein. At the outset, petitioner submits that private respondents have not acquired proprietary rights over the subject properties before they acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization to justify the registration thereof in their favor. It maintains that even privately owned unregistered lands are presumed to be public lands under the principle that lands of whatever classification belong to the State under the Regalian doctrine. Thus, before the issuance of the certificate of title, the occupant is not in the jurisdical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State. Petitioner further argued that it is only when the court adjudicates the land to the applicant for confirmation of title would the land become privately owned land, for in the same proceeding, the court may declare it public land, depending on the evidence. As found by the trial court: The evidence thus presented established that applicants, by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, public, peaceful, continuous, exclusive

and notorious possession and occupation of the two adjacent parcels of land applied for registration of title under a bona-fide claim of ownership long before June 12, 1945. Such being the case, it is conclusively presumed that all the conditions essential to the confirmation of their title over the two adjacent parcels of land are sought to be registered have been complied with thereby entitling them to the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. (Rollo, p. 26) Respondent court echoed the court a quo's observation, thus: The land sought to be registered has been declared to be within the alienable and disposable zone established by the Bureau of Forest Development (Exhibit "P"). The investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands, Natural Resources District (IV-2) reveals that the disputed realty had been occupied by the applicants "whose house of strong materials stands thereon"; that it had been declared for taxation purposes in the name of applicants-spouses since 1979; that they acquired the same by means of a public instrument entitled "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan" duly executed by the vendor, Cristeta Dazo Belen, on June 17, 1978 (Exhibits "I" and "J"); and that applicants and their predecessors in interest had been in possession of the land for more than 30 years prior to the filing of the application for registration. But what is of great significance in the instant case is the circumstance that at the time the applicants purchased the subject lot in 1978, both of them were Filipino citizens such that when they filed their application for registration in 1987, ownership over the land in dispute had already passed to them. (Rollo, p., 27) The Republic disagrees with the appellate court's concept of possession and argues: 17. The Court of Appeals found that the land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of respondent spouses only since 1979. However, tax declarations or reality tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership. (citing cases) 18. Then again, the appellate court found that "applicants (respondents) and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land for more than 30 years prior to the filing of the application for registration." This is not, however, the same as saying that respondents have been in possession "since June 12, 1945." (PD No. 1073, amending Sec. 48 [b], CA NO. 141; sec. also Sec. 14, PD No. 1529). So there is a void in respondents' possession. They fall short of the required possession since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto. And, even if they needed only to prove thirty (30) years possession prior to the filing of their application (on February 5, 1987), they would still be short of the required possession if the starting point is 1979 when, according to the Court of Appeals, the land was declared for taxation purposes in their name. (Rollo, pp. 14-15) The argument is myopic, to say the least. Following the logic of petitioner, any transferee is thus foreclosed to apply for registration of title over a parcel of land notwithstanding the fact that the transferor, or his predecessor-in-interest has been in open, notorious and exclusive possession thereof for thirty (30) years or more. This is not, however, what the law provides. As petitioner itself argues, Section 48 of the Public Land Act (CA 141) reads:

Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor under the Land Registration Act, to wit: xxx xxx xxx (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by wars or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (Emphasis supplied) As amended by PD 1073: Sec. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945. It must be noted that with respect to possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, the law employs the terms "by themselves", "the applicant himself or through his predecessor-in-interest". Thus, it matters not whether the vendee/applicant has been in possession of the subject property for only a day so long as the period and/or legal requirements for confirmation of title has been complied with by his predecessor-in-interest, the said period is tacked to his possession. In the case at bar, respondents' predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the disputed land not only since June 12, 1945, but even as early as 1937. Petitioner does not deny this except that respondent spouses, in its perception, were in possession of the land sought to be registered only in 1978 and therefore short of the required length of time. As aforesaid, the disputed parcels of land were acquired by private respondents through their predecessors-in-interest, who, in turn, have been in open and continued possession thereof since 1937. Private respondents stepped into the shoes of their predecessors-ininterest and by virtue thereof, acquired all the legal rights necessary to confirm what could otherwise be deemed as an imperfect title. At this juncture, petitioner's reliance in Republic v. Villanueva (114 SCRA 875 [1982]) deserves scant consideration. There, it was held that before the issuance of the certificate of title, the occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State. Suffice it to state that the ruling in Republic v. Villanueva (supra), has already been abandoned in the 1986 case of Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court (146 SCRA 509; and reiterated in Director of Lands v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 200 SCRA 606 [1991]) where the Court, through then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Narvasa, declared that: (The weight of authority is) that open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction

whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property. . . . Herico in particular, appears to be squarely affirmative: . . . Secondly, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1942, which the respondent Court held to be inapplicable to the petitioner's case, with the latter's proven occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years since 1914, by himself and by his predecessors-in-interest, title over the land has vested on petitioner so as to segregate the land from the mass of public land. Thereafter, it is no longer disposable under the Public Land Act as by free patent ... xxx xxx xxx As interpreted in several cases, when the conditions as specified in the foregoing provision are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land, therefore, ceases to be of the public domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent. Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical inevitability of considering possession of public land which is of the character and duration prescribed by the statute as the equivalent of an express grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself (Section 48 [b]) that the possessor(s) ". . . shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title ..." No proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption, confirmation proceedings would, in truth be little more than a formality, at the most limited to ascertaining whether the possession claims is of the required character and length of time; and registration thereunder would not confer title, but simply recognize a title already vested. The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land, but only confirm such a conversion already affected by operation of law from the moment the required period of possession became complete. As was so well put in Cario, ". . .(There are indications that registration was expected from all, but none sufficient to show that, for want of it, ownership actually gained would be lost. The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law. (Emphasis supplied) Subsequent cases have hewed to the above pronouncement such that open, continuous and exclusive possession for at least 30 years of alienable public land ipso jure converts the same to private property (Director of Lands v. IAC, 214 SCRA 604 [1992]; Pineda v. CA, 183 SCRA 602 [1990]). This means that occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years by an applicant and his predecessors-in-interest, vest title on such applicant so as to segregate the land from the mass of public and (National Power Corporation v. CA, 218 SCRA 41 [1993]).

The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove that (a) the land is alienable public land and (b) his possession, in the concept above stated, must be either since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act (Director of Lands v. Buyco, 216 SCRA 78 [1992]). When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued (National Power Corporation v. CA, supra). As such, the land ceases to be a part of the public domain and goes beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. In other words, the Torrens system was not established as a means for the acquisition of title to private land (Municipality of Victorias v. CA, 149 SCRA 32 [1987]). It merely confirms, but does not confer ownership. As could be gleaned from the evidence adduced, private respondents were able to establish the nature of possession of their predecessors-in-interest. Evidence was offered to prove that their predecessors-in-interest had paid taxes on the subject land and introduced improvements thereon (Exhibits "F" to "F9"). A certified true copy of the affidavit executed by Cristeta Dazo and her sister Simplicia was also formally offered to prove that the subject parcels of land were inherited by vendor Cristeta Dazo from her father Pedro Dazo with the conformity of her only sister Simplicia (Exhibit "G"). Likewise, a report from the Bureau of Lands was presented in evidence together with a letter from the Bureau of Forest Development, to prove that the questioned lots were part of the alienable and disposable zone of the government and that no forestry interest was affected (CA GR No. 28953, Records, p. 33). In the main, petitioner seeks to defeat respondents' application for registration of title on the ground of foreign nationality. Accordingly, the ruling in Director of Lands v. Buyco (supra) supports petitioner's thesis. We disagree. In Buyco, the applicants therein were likewise foreign nationals but were natural-born Filipino citizens at the time of their supposed acquisition of the property. But this is where the similarity ends. The applicants in Buyco sought to register a large tract of land under the provisions of the Land Registration Act, and in the alternative, under the provisions of the Public Land Act. The land registration court decided in favor of the applicants and was affirmed by the appellate court on appeal. The Director of Lands brought the matter before us on review and we reversed. This Court, speaking through Justice Davide, Jr., stated: As could be gleaned from the evidence adduced, the private respondents do not rely on fee simple ownership based on a Spanish grant or possessory information title under Section 19 of the Land Registration Act; the private respondents did not present any proof that they or their predecessors-in-interest derived title from an old Spanish grant such as (a) the "titulo real" or royal grant (b) the "concession especial" or especial grant; (c) the "composicion con el estado" title or adjustment title; (d) the "titulo de compra" or title by purchase; and (e) the "informacion posesoria" or possessory information title, which could become a "titulo gratuito" or a gratuitous title (Director of Forestry v. Muoz, 23 SCRA 1183 [1968]). The primary basis of their claim is possession, by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, since time immemorial. If indeed private respondents and their predecessors have been in possession since time immemorial, the rulings of both courts could be upheld for, as this Court stated in Oh Cho v. Director of Lands (75 Phil. 890 [1946]):

. . . All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that if had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest (Cario v. Insular Government, 41 Phil 935 [1909]; 212 U.S. 449; 53 Law. Ed., 594) The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by his first predecessor in interest began in 1880. . . . alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years under the Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure. (Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra) It is obvious from the foregoing rule that the applicant must prove that (a) the land is alienable public land and (b) his possession, in the concept above stated, must be either since time immemorial, as ruled in both Cario and Susi, or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act. As to the latter, this Court, in Gutierrez Hermanos v. Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 37 [1989]), adopted the rule enunciated by the Court of Appeals, per then Associate Justice Hugo R. Gutierrez, Jr., . . ., that an applicant for registration under Section 48 of the Public Land Act must secure a certification from the Government that the lands which he claims to have possessed as owner for more than thirty (30) years are alienable and disposable. It is the burden of the applicant to prove its positive averments. In the instant case, private respondents offered no evidence at all to prove that the property subject of the application is an alienable and disposable land. On the contrary, the entire property . . . was pasture land (and therefore inalienable under the then 1973 Constitution). . . . (P)rivate respondents' evidence miserably failed to establish their imperfect title to the property in question. Their allegation of possession since time immemorial, . . ., is patently baseless. . . . When referring to possession, specifically "immemorial possession," it means possession of which no man living has seen the beginning, and the existence of which he has learned from his elders (Susi v. Razon, supra). Such possession was never present in the case of private respondents. . . . . . ., there does not even exist a reasonable basis for the finding that the private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest possessed the land for more than eighty (80) years, . . . xxx xxx xxx To this Court's mind, private respondents failed to prove that (their predecessor-ininterest) had possessed the property allegedly covered by Tax Declaration No. 15853 and made the subject of both his last will and testament and the project of partition of his estate among his heirs in such manner as to remove the same from

the public domain under the Cario and Susi doctrines. Thus, (when the predecessor-in-interest) died on 31 May 1937, he transmitted no right whatsoever, with respect to the said property, to his heirs. This being the case, his possession cannot be tacked to that of the private respondents for the latter's benefit pursuant to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the alternative ground relied upon in their application . . . xxx xxx xxx Considering that the private respondents became American citizens before such filing, it goes without saying that they had acquired no vested right, consisting of an imperfect title, over the property before they lost their Philippine citizenship. (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, the application in Buyco were denied registration of title not merely because they were American citizens at the time of their application therefor. Respondents therein failed to prove possession of their predecessor-in-interest since time immemorial or possession in such a manner that the property has been segregated from public domain; such that at the time of their application, as American citizens, they have acquired no vested rights over the parcel of land. In the case at bar, private respondents were undoubtedly natural-born Filipino citizens at the time of the acquisition of the properties and by virtue thereof, acquired vested rights thereon, tacking in the process, the possession in the concept of owner and the prescribed period of time held by their predecessors-in-interest under the Public Land Act. In addition, private respondents have constructed a house of strong materials on the contested property, now occupied by respondent Lapias mother. But what should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the fact that the Constitution itself allows private respondents to register the contested parcels of land in their favor. Sections 7 and 8 of Article XII of the Constitution contain the following pertinent provisions, to wit: Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. (Emphasis supplied) Section 8, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution above quoted is similar to Section 15, Article XIV of the then 1973 Constitution which reads: Sec. 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his citizenship may be a transferee of private land, for use by him as his residence, as the Batasang Pambansa may provide. Pursuant thereto, Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 was passed into law, the relevant provision of which provides: Sec. 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine

laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed. In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized. From the adoption of the 1987 Constitution up to the present, no other law has been passed by the legislature on the same subject. Thus, what governs the disposition of private lands in favor of a natural-born Filipino citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship remains to be BP 185. Even if private respondents were already Canadian citizens at the time they applied for registration of the properties in question, said properties as discussed above were already private lands; consequently, there could be no legal impediment for the registration thereof by respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains. The parcels of land sought to be registered no longer form part of the public domain. They are already private in character since private respondents' predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous and exclusive possession and occupation thereof under claim of ownership prior to June 12, 1945 or since 1937. The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence (BP 185). It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to prove the requisite period and character of possession of their predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for registration of title must perforce be approved. The dissenting opinion, however, states that the requirements in BP 185, must also be complied with by private respondents. Specifically, it refers to Section 6, which provides: Sec. 6. In addition to the requirements provided for in other laws for the registration of titles to lands, no private land shall be transferred under this Act, unless the transferee shall submit to the register of deeds of the province or city where the property is located a sworn statement showing the date and place of his birth; the names and addresses of his parents, of his spouse and children, if any; the area, the location and the mode of acquisition of his landholdings in the Philippines, if any; his intention to reside permanently in the Philippines; the date he lost his Philippine citizenship and the country of which he is presently a citizen; and such other information as may be required under Section 8 of this Act. The Court is of the view that the requirements in Sec. 6 of BP 185 do not apply in the instant case since said requirements are primarily directed to the register of deeds before whom compliance therewith is to be submitted. Nowhere in the provision is it stated, much less implied, that the

requirements must likewise be submitted before the land registration court prior to the approval of an application for registration of title. An application for registration of title before a land registration court should not be confused with the issuance of a certificate of title by the register of deeds. It is only when the judgment of the land registration court approving the application for registration has become final that a decree of registration is issued. And that is the time when the requirements of Sec. 6, BP 185, before the register of deeds should be complied with by the applicants. This decree of registration is the one that is submitted to the office of the register of deeds for issuance of the certificate of title in favor of the applicant. Prior to the issuance of the decree of registration, the register of deeds has no participation in the approval of the application for registration of title as the decree of registration is yet to be issued. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 MANILA PRINCE HOTEL petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.: The FiIipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, 1 is in oked by petitioner in its bid to acquire 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which owns the historic Manila Hotel. Opposing, respondents maintain that the provision is not self-executing but requires an implementing legislation for its enforcement. Corollarily, they ask whether the 51% shares form part of the national economy and patrimony covered by the protective mantle of the Constitution. The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC. The winning bidder, or the eventual "strategic partner," is to provide management expertise and/or an international marketing/reservation system, and financial support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila Hotel. 2 In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. Pertinent provisions of the bidding rules prepared by respondent GSIS state I. EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS WITH GSIS/MHC

1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set forth below by October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3, 1995) or the Highest Bidder will lose the right to purchase the Block of Shares and GSIS will instead offer the Block of Shares to the other Qualified Bidders: a. The Highest Bidder must negotiate and execute with the GSIS/MHC the Management Contract, International Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other type of contract specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic plan for the Manila Hotel. . . . b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with GSIS . . . . K. DECLARATION OF THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner after the following conditions are met: a. Execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC not later than October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3, 1995); and
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and COP (Committee on Privatization)/OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate Counsel) are obtained. 3

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. 4 In a subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33.000.000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong Berhad . . . 5 which respondent GSIS refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus. On 18 October 1995 the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm. On 10 September 1996 the instant case was accepted by the Court En Banc after it was referred to it by the First Division. The case was then set for oral arguments with former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., as amici curiae. In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national patrimony. 6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business

of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy. Thus, any transaction involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies. 7 It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony and its business also unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules mandate that if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share. 8 Respondents except. They maintain that: First, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s) . . . Thus, for the said provision to Operate, there must be existing laws "to lay down conditions under which business may be done." 9 Second, granting that this provision is self-executing, Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national patrimony which only refers to lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial sea, and exclusive marine zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. According to respondents, while petitioner speaks of the guests who have slept in the hotel and the events that have transpired therein which make the hotel historic, these alone do not make the hotel fall under the patrimonyof the nation. What is more, the mandate of the Constitution is addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS which possesses a personality of its own separate and distinct from the Philippines as a State. Third, granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony, the constitutional provision invoked is still inapplicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands. Certainly, 51% of the equity of the MHC cannot be considered part of the national patrimony. Moreover, if the disposition of the shares of the MHC is really contrary to the Constitution, petitioner should have questioned it right from the beginning and not after it had lost in the bidding. Fourth, the reliance by petitioner on par. V., subpar. J. 1., of the bidding rules which provides that if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share, is misplaced. Respondents postulate that the privilege of submitting a matching bid has not yet arisen since it only takes place if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares. Thus the submission by petitioner of a matching bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a matching bid had not yet taken place. Finally, the prayer for prohibition grounded on grave abuse of discretion should fail since respondent GSIS did not exercise its discretion in a capricious, whimsical manner, and if ever it did abuse its discretion it was not so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Similarly, the petition for mandamus should fail as petitioner has no clear legal right to what it demands and respondents do not have an imperative duty to perform the act required of them by petitioner. We now resolve. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority

from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. 10 It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. 11 Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. 12 A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is selfexecuting if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. 13 As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted upon a different principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended to operate directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. 14 This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that
. . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing . . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.

15

Respondents argue that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is clearly not selfexecuting, as they quote from discussions on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I am asking this question as the Chairman of the Committee on Style. If the wording of "PREFERENCE" is given to QUALIFIED FILIPINOS," can it be understood as a preference to qualified Filipinos vis-a-vis Filipinos who are not qualified. So, why do we not make it clear? To qualified Filipinos as against aliens? THE PRESIDENT. What is the question of Commissioner Rodrigo? Is it to remove the word "QUALIFIED?".

MR. RODRIGO. No, no, but say definitely "TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" as against whom? As against aliens or over aliens? MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is understood. We use the word "QUALIFIED" because the existing laws or prospective laws will always lay down conditions under which business may be done. For example, qualifications on the setting up of other financial structures, et cetera (emphasis supplied by respondents) MR. RODRIGO. It is just a matter of style.
MR. NOLLEDO Yes, 16

Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But, certainly, the legislature is not precluded from enacting other further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so long as the contemplated statute squares with the Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature without impairing the self-executing nature of constitutional provisions. In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. 17 Subsequent legislation however does not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable. Respondents also argue that the non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the same section which undoubtedly are not self-executing. 18 The argument is flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self-executing because Congress is still to enact measures to encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does not by its language require any legislation in order to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in another. 19 Even the cases cited by respondents holding that certain constitutional provisions are merely statements of principles and policies, which are basically not self-executing and only placed in the Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights are simply not in point. Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation 20 speaks of constitutional provisions on personal dignity, 21 the sanctity of family life, 22 the vital role of the youth in nationbuilding 23 the promotion of social justice, 24 and the values of education. 25 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance 26 refers to the constitutional provisions on social justice and human rights 27 and on education. 28 Lastly, Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato 29 cites provisions on the promotion of general

welfare, 30 the sanctity of family life, 31 the vital role of the youth in nation-building 32 and the promotion of total human liberation and development. 33 A reading of these provisions indeed clearly shows that they are not judicially enforceable constitutional rights but merely guidelines for legislation. The very terms of the provisions manifest that they are only principles upon which the legislations must be based. Res ipsa loquitur. On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable When our Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. As regards our national patrimony, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission 34 explains The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and developed refers not only to out rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of out race. It also refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. Therefore, we should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and other natural resources but also the mental ability or faculty of our people. We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. 35 When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Manila Hotel has become a landmark a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino, Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. It was called the Cultural Center of the 1930's. It was the site of the festivities during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government. it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. 36 The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book The Manila Hotel: The Heart and Memory of a City. 37During World War II the hotel was converted by the Japanese Military Administration into a military headquarters. When the American forces returned to recapture Manila the hotel was selected by the Japanese together with Intramuros as the two (2) places fro their final stand. Thereafter, in the 1950's and 1960's, the hotel became the center of political activities, playing host to almost every political convention. In 1970 the hotel reopened after a renovation and reaped numerous international recognitions, an acknowledgment of the Filipino talent and ingenuity. In 1986 the hotel was the site of a failed coup d' etat where an aspirant for vice-president was "proclaimed" President of the Philippine Republic. For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Verily, Manila

Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands. Consequently, we cannot sustain respondents' claim that theFilipino First Policy provision is not applicable since what is being sold is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the Hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands. 38 The argument is pure sophistry. The term qualified Filipinos as used in Our Constitution also includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos. This is very clear from the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized. MR. DAVIDE. I would like to introduce an amendment to the Nolledo amendment. And the amendment would consist in substituting the words "QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" with the following: "CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES OR CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE CAPITAL OR CONTROLLING STOCK IS WHOLLY OWNED BY SUCH CITIZENS. xxx xxx xxx MR. MONSOD. Madam President, apparently the proponent is agreeable, but we have to raise a question. Suppose it is a corporation that is 80-percent Filipino, do we not give it preference? MR. DAVIDE. The Nolledo amendment would refer to an individual Filipino. What about a corporation wholly owned by Filipino citizens? MR. MONSOD. At least 60 percent, Madam President. MR. DAVIDE. Is that the intention? MR. MONSOD. Yes, because, in fact, we would be limiting it if we say that the preference should only be 100-percent Filipino. MR: DAVIDE. I want to get that meaning clear because "QUALIFIED FILIPINOS" may refer only to individuals and not to juridical personalities or entities.
MR. MONSOD. We agree, Madam President. 39

xxx xxx xxx MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, may I request that the amendment be read again.
MR. NOLLEDO. The amendment will read: "IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE

NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." And the word "Filipinos" here, as intended by the proponents, will include not only individual Filipinos but also Filipino-controlled entities or entities fully-controlled by Filipinos. 40

The phrase preference to qualified Filipinos was explained thus MR. FOZ. Madam President, I would like to request Commissioner Nolledo to please restate his amendment so that I can ask a question. MR. NOLLEDO. "IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS." MR FOZ. In connection with that amendment, if a foreign enterprise is qualified and a Filipino enterprise is also qualified, will the Filipino enterprise still be given a preference? MR. NOLLEDO. Obviously. MR. FOZ. If the foreigner is more qualified in some aspects than the Filipino enterprise, will the Filipino still be preferred? MR. NOLLEDO. The answer is "yes."
MR. FOZ. Thank you, 41

Expounding further on the Filipino First Policy provision Commissioner Nolledo continues
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. Instead of "MUST," it will be "SHALL THE STATE SHALL GlVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS. This embodies the socalled "Filipino First" policy. That means that Filipinos should be given preference in the grant of concessions, privileges and rights covering the national patrimony. 42

The exchange of views in the sessions of the Constitutional Commission regarding the subject provision was still further clarified by Commissioner Nolledo 43 Paragraph 2 of Section 10 explicitly mandates the "Pro-Filipino" bias in all economic concerns. It is better known as the FILIPINO FIRST Policy . . . This provision was never found in previous Constitutions . . . . The term "qualified Filipinos" simply means that preference shall be given to those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good, because of credible competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT mandate the pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens or organizations that are incompetent or inefficient, since such an indiscriminate preference would be counter productive and inimical to the common good.

In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice has to be made between a "qualified foreigner" end a "qualified Filipino," the latter shall be chosen over the former." Lastly, the word qualified is also determinable. Petitioner was so considered by respondent GSIS and selected as one of the qualified bidders. It was pre-qualified by respondent GSIS in accordance with its own guidelines so that the sole inference here is that petitioner has been found to be possessed of proven management expertise in the hotel industry, or it has significant equity ownership in another hotel company, or it has an overall management and marketing proficiency to successfully operate the Manila Hotel. 44 The penchant to try to whittle away the mandate of the Constitution by arguing that the subject provision is not self-executory and requires implementing legislation is quite disturbing. The attempt to violate a clear constitutional provision by the government itself is only too distressing. To adopt such a line of reasoning is to renounce the duty to ensure faithfulness to the Constitution. For, even some of the provisions of the Constitution which evidently need implementing legislation have juridical life of their own and can be the source of a judicial remedy. We cannot simply afford the government a defense that arises out of the failure to enact further enabling, implementing or guiding legislation. In fine, the discourse of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., on constitutional government is apt
The executive department has a constitutional duty to implement laws, including the Constitution, even before Congress acts provided that there are discoverable legal standards for executive action. When the executive acts, it must be guided by its own understanding of the constitutional command and of applicable laws. The responsibility for reading and understanding the Constitution and the laws is not the sole prerogative of Congress. If it were, the executive would have to ask Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an interpretation every time the executive is confronted by a constitutional command. That is not how constitutional government operates. 45

Respondents further argue that the constitutional provision is addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS which by itself possesses a separate and distinct personality. This argument again is at best specious. It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of the MHC could only be carried out with the prior approval of the State acting through respondent Committee on Privatization. As correctly pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., this fact alone makes the sale of the assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a "state action." In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the government are considered "state action" covered by the Constitution (1) when the activity it engages in is a "public function;" (2) when the government is so significantly involved with the private actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and, (3) when the government has approved or authorized the action. It is evident that the act of respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent MHC comes under the second and third categories of "state action." Without doubt therefore the transaction. although entered into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore subject to the constitutional command. 46 When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to the government as elements of the State. After all, government is composed of three (3) divisions of power legislative, executive and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional mandate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three(3) branches of government. It is undeniable that in this case the subject constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the Executive Department and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality deriving its authority from the State. It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only be declared the winning

bidder after it has negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and secured the requisite approvals. Since the "Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference on qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to make the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to be known to all the bidders and other interested parties. Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being. Paragraph V. J. 1 of the bidding rules provides that [if] for any reason the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share. 47 Certainly, the constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of shares immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher, or even the highest, bid. In fact, we cannot conceive of a stronger reason than the constitutional injunction itself. In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should go to the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and meaning to the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution. For, while this may neither be expressly stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is, omnipresent to be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the basic law. This Court does not discount the apprehension that this policy may discourage foreign investors. But the Constitution and laws of the Philippines are understood to be always open to public scrutiny. These are given factors which investors must consider when venturing into business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person therefore desiring to do business in the Philippines or with any of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and obligations under the Constitution and the laws of the forum. The argument of respondents that petitioner is now estopped from questioning the sale to Renong Berhad since petitioner was well aware from the beginning that a foreigner could participate in the bidding is meritless. Undoubtedly, Filipinos and foreigners alike were invited to the bidding. But foreigners may be awarded the sale only if no Filipino qualifies, or if the qualified Filipino fails to match the highest bid tendered by the foreign entity. In the case before us, while petitioner was already preferred at the inception of the bidding because of the constitutional mandate, petitioner had not yet matched the bid offered by Renong Berhad. Thus it did not have the right or personality then to compel respondent GSIS to accept its earlier bid. Rightly, only after it had matched the bid of the foreign firm and the apparent disregard by respondent GSIS of petitioner's matching bid did the latter have a cause of action. Besides, there is no time frame for invoking the constitutional safeguard unless perhaps the award has been finally made. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to foreigners when there is a Filipino group willing to match the bid of the foreign group is to insist that government be treated as any

other ordinary market player, and bound by its mistakes or gross errors of judgment, regardless of the consequences to the Filipino people. The miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable. Thus we would rather remedy the indiscretion while there is still an opportunity to do so than let the government develop the habit of forgetting that the Constitution lays down the basic conditions and parameters for its actions. Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to petitioner the block of shares of MHC and to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution as well. The refusal of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with petitioner as provided in the bidding rules after the latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine nationalism. It is embodied in the 1987 Constitution not merely to be used as a guideline for future legislation but primarily to be enforced; so must it be enforced. This Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution will never shun, under any reasonable circumstance, the duty of upholding the majesty of the Constitution which it is tasked to defend. It is worth emphasizing that it is not the intention of this Court to impede and diminish, much less undermine, the influx of foreign investments. Far from it, the Court encourages and welcomes more business opportunities but avowedly sanctions the preference for Filipinos whenever such preference is ordained by the Constitution. The position of the Court on this matter could have not been more appropriately articulated by Chief Justice Narvasa As scrupulously as it has tried to observe that it is not its function to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or the executive about the wisdom and feasibility of legislation economic in nature, the Supreme Court has not been spared criticism for decisions perceived as obstacles to economic progress and development . . . in connection with a temporary injunction issued by the Court's First Division against the sale of the Manila Hotel to a Malaysian Firm and its partner, certain statements were published in a major daily to the effect that injunction "again demonstrates that the Philippine legal system can be a major obstacle to doing business here.
Let it be stated for the record once again that while it is no business of the Court to intervene in contracts of the kind referred to or set itself up as the judge of whether they are viable or attainable, it is its bounden duty to make sure that they do not violate the Constitution or the laws, or are not adopted or implemented with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It will never shirk that duty, no matter how buffeted by winds of unfair and ill-informed criticism. 48

Privatization of a business asset for purposes of enhancing its business viability and preventing further losses, regardless of the character of the asset, should not take precedence over nonmaterial values. A commercial, nay even a budgetary, objective should not be pursued at the expense of national pride and dignity. For the Constitution enshrines higher and nobler non-material values. Indeed, the Court will always defer to the Constitution in the proper governance of a free society; after all, there is nothing so sacrosanct in any economic policy as to draw itself beyond judicial review when the Constitution is involved. 49 Nationalism is inherent, in the very concept of the Philippines being a democratic and republican state, with sovereignty residing in the Filipino people and from whom all government authority emanates. In nationalism, the happiness and welfare of the people must be the goal. The nationstate can have no higher purpose. Any interpretation of any constitutional provision must adhere to

such basic concept. Protection of foreign investments, while laudible, is merely a policy. It cannot override the demands of nationalism. 50 The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. We are not talking about an ordinary piece of property in a commercial district. We are talking about a historic relic that has hosted many of the most important events in the short history of the Philippines as a nation. We are talking about a hotel where heads of states would prefer to be housed as a strong manifestation of their desire to cloak the dignity of the highest state function to their official visits to the Philippines. Thus the Manila Hotel has played and continues to play a significant role as an authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine history and culture. In this sense, it has become truly a reflection of the Filipino soul a place with a history of grandeur; a most historical setting that has played a part in the shaping of a country. 51 This Court cannot extract rhyme nor reason from the determined efforts of respondents to sell the historical landmark this Grand Old Dame of hotels in Asia to a total stranger. For, indeed, the conveyance of this epic exponent of the Filipino psyche to alien hands cannot be less than mephistophelian for it is, in whatever manner viewed, a veritable alienation of a nation's soul for some pieces of foreign silver. And so we ask: What advantage, which cannot be equally drawn from a qualified Filipino, can be gained by the Filipinos Manila Hotel and all that it stands for is sold to a non-Filipino? How much of national pride will vanish if the nation's cultural heritage is entrusted to a foreign entity? On the other hand, how much dignity will be preserved and realized if the national patrimony is safekept in the hands of a qualified, zealous and well-meaning Filipino? This is the plain and simple meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of the Philippine Constitution. And this Court, heeding the clarion call of the Constitution and accepting the duty of being the elderly watchman of the nation, will continue to respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution. WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for purpose. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY

NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents. Oposa Law Office for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth." The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1 The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." 4Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:

. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to (1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; (2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises." 5 The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect." Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial. As their cause of action, they specifically allege that: CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.

9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land area. 10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth forests. 11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes. A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as Annex "A". 12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier. 13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults. 14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs especially plaintiff minors and their successors who may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure. This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations. 15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae. 16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country. A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex "B". 17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs. 18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other; (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos and; (c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977) 20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution); b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid); c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV,id.); d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.) 21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind the natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation.
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. 6

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. 7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land. Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the

respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case. 8 On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto. Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment. It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question. Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires. On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally. As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of time usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due process. Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule

3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former. This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the petition. After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant. Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed with political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law. 11

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the

complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides: Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article: Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question: MR. VILLACORTA: Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution air, water and noise pollution? MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of environmental balance. 12

The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby disrupted.

Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the following statement of policy: Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of the country's natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources. This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, 15specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads: Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future generations. (2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources. The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said section provides: Sec. 2. Mandate. (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy. (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources.

Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." 17The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy. Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 18

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in disrepute." After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties. The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already

formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says: The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government. As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the judiciary. In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted: In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: ... The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law. 24

We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by

the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides: . . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . . Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held: . . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576). We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26 . . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302]. Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
27

cannot be invoked. In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,

promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp. 28 this Court stated: The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, 30 to wit: Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest. In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31 Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right. WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 79538 October 18, 1990 FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORPORATION, respondents. Taada, Vivo & Tan for petitioner. Antonio E. Escober and Jurado Law Office for respondent Twin Peaks Development Corporation.

COURTS, J.: Soon after the change of government in February 1986, petitioner sent a letter dated March 17, 1986 to the Office of the President, and another letter dated April 2, 1986 to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation without public bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations; and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession area [Annexes "6" and "7" of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 54-63]. Petitioner made the following allegations: (a) That on October 12, 1965, it entered into a timber license agreement designated as TLA No. 87 with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land with an area of 54,920 hectares located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya * from October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990; (b) That on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development [hereinafter referred to as "Bureau"], Director Edmundo Cortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions and a memorandum order of the Minister of Natural Resources Teodoro Pena [Annex "5" of the Petition; Rollo, p. 49]; (c) that on August 25, 1983, petitioner received a telegram from the Bureau, the contents of which were as follows: PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT YOU ARE REQUESTED TO STOP ALL LOGGING OPERATIONS TO CONSERVE REMAINING FORESTS PLEASE CONDUCT THE ORDERLY PULL-OUT OF LOGGING MACHINERIES AND EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE WITH THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICT FORESTERS FOR THE INVENTORY OF LOGS CUT PRIOR TO THIS ORDER THE SUBMISSION OF A COMPLIANCE REPORT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHALL BE APPRECIATED [Annex "4" of the Petition; Rollo, p. 48]; (d) That after the cancellation of its timber license agreement, it immediately sent a letter addressed to then President Ferdinand Marcos which sought reconsideration of the Bureau's directive, citing in support thereof its contributions to alleging that it was not given the forest conservation and opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging 531, but no operations (Annex "6" of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 50 favorable action was taken on this letter; (e) That barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half or 26,000 hectares of the area formerly covered by TLA No. 87 was re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Reality Corporation under TLA No. 356 which was set to expire on July 31, 2009, while the other half was allowed to be logged by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license; and, (f) That the latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos. Acting on petitioner's letter, the MNR through then Minister Ernesto Maceda

issued an order dated July 22, 1986 denying petitioner's request. The Ministry ruled that a timber license was not a contract within the due process clause of the Constitution, but only a privilege which could be withdrawn whenever public interest or welfare so demands, and that petitioner was not discriminated against in view of the fact that it was among ten concessionaires whose licenses were revoked in 1983. Moreover, emphasis was made of the total ban of logging operations in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao imposed on April 2, 1986, thus: xxx xxx xxx It should be recalled that [petitioner's] earlier request for reinstatement has been denied in view of the total ban of all logging operations in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Ifugao which was imposed for reasons of conservation and national security. The Ministry imposed the ban because it realizes the great responsibility it bear [sic] in respect to forest t considers itself the trustee thereof. This being the case, it has to ensure the availability of forest resources not only for the present, but also for the future generations of Filipinos. On the other hand, the activities of the insurgents in these parts of the country are well documented. Their financial demands on logging concessionaires are well known. The government, therefore, is well within its right to deprive its enemy of sources of funds in order to preserve itself, its established institutions and the liberty and democratic way of life of its people. xxx xxx xxx [Annex "9" of the Petition, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 65-67.] Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforestated order reiterating, among others. its request that TLA No. 356 issued to private respondent be declared null and void. The MNR however denied this motion in an order dated September 15, 1986. stating in part: xxx xxx xxx Regarding [petitioner's] request that the award of a 26,000 hectare portion of TLA No. 87 to Twin Peaks Realty Development Corporation under TLA No. 356 be declared null and void, suffice it to say that the Ministry is now in the process of reviewing all contracts, permits or other form of privileges for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of natural resources entered into, granted, issued or acquired before the issuance of Proclamation No. 3, otherwise known as the Freedom Constitution for the purpose of amending, modifying or revoking them when the national interest so requires. xxx xxx xxx The Ministry, through the Bureau of Forest Development, has jurisdiction and authority over all forest lands. On the basis of this authority, the Ministry issued the order banning all logging operations/activities in Quirino province, among others, where movant's former concession area is located. Therefore, the issuance of an order disallowing any person or entity from removing cut or uncut logs from the

portion of TLA No. 87, now under TLA No. 356, would constitute an unnecessary or superfluous act on the part of the Ministry. xxx xxx xxx [Annex "11" of the Petition, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 77-78.] On November 26, 1986, petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Meanwhile, per MNR Administrative Order No. 54, series of 1986, issued on November 26, 1986, the logging ban in the province of Quirino was lifted. Petitioner subsequently appealed from the orders of the MNR to the Office of the President. In a resolution dated July 6, 1987, the Office of the President, acting through then Deputy Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. The Office of the President ruled that the appeal of petitioner was prematurely filed, the matter not having been terminated in the MNR. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 14, 1987. Hence, petitioner filed directly with this Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, on August 27, 1987. On October 13, 1987, it filed a supplement to its petition for certiorari. Thereafter, public and private respondents submitted their respective comments, and petitioner filed its consolidated reply thereto. In a resolution dated May 22, 1989, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition. After a careful study of the circumstances in the case at bar, the Court finds several factors which militate against the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner. 1. Firstly, the refusal of public respondents herein to reverse final and executory administrative orders does not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is an established doctrine in this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. These decisions and orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as though the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule of res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by competent authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction [See Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956); Ipekdjian Merchandising Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72; San Luis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80160, June 26, 1989]. In the case at bar, petitioner's letters to the Office of the President and the MNR [now the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) dated March 17, 1986 and April 2, 1986, respectively, sought the reconsideration of a memorandum order issued by the Bureau of Forest Development which cancelled its timber license agreement in 1983, as well as the revocation of TLA No. 356 subsequently issued by the Bureau to private respondents in 1984. But as gleaned from the record, petitioner did not avail of its remedies under the law, i.e. Section 8 of Pres. Dec. No. 705 as amended, for attacking the validity of these administrative actions until after 1986. By the time petitioner sent its letter dated April 2, 1986 to the newly appointed Minister of the MNR requesting reconsideration of the above Bureau actions, these were already settled matters as far as petitioner was concerned [See Rueda v. Court of Agrarian Relations, 106 Phil. 300 (1959); Danan v. Aspillera G.R. No. L-17305, November 28, 1962, 6 SCRA 609; Ocampo v. Arboleda G.R. No. L-48190, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 374].

No particular significance can be attached to petitioner's letter dated September 19, 1983 which petitioner claimed to have sent to then President Marcos [Annex "6" of Petition, Rollo, pp. 50-53], seeking the reconsideration of the 1983 order issued by Director Cortes of the Bureau. It must be pointed out that the averments in this letter are entirely different from the charges of fraud against officials under the previous regime made by petitioner in its letters to public respondents herein. In the letter to then President Marcos, petitioner simply contested its inclusion in the list of concessionaires, whose licenses were cancelled, by defending its record of selective logging and reforestation practices in the subject concession area. Yet, no other administrative steps appear to have been taken by petitioner until 1986, despite the fact that the alleged fraudulent scheme became apparent in 1984 as evidenced by the awarding of the subject timber concession area to other entities in that year. 2. Moreover, petitioner is precluded from availing of the benefits of a writ of certiorari in the present case because he failed to file his petition within a reasonable period. The principal issue ostensibly presented for resolution in the instant petition is whether or not public respondents herein acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to overturn administrative orders issued by their predecessors in the past regime. Yet, what the petition ultimately seeks is the nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling TLA No. 87 and granting TLA No. 356 to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Once again, the fact that petitioner failed to seasonably take judicial recourse to have the earlier administrative actions reviewed by the courts through a petition for certiorari is prejudicial to its cause. For although no specific time frame is fixed for the institution of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the same must nevertheless be done within a "reasonable time". The yardstick to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the "reasonableness of the length of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained of up to the institution of the proceeding to annul the same" [Toledo v. Pardo, G.R. No. 56761, November 19, 1982, 118 SCRA 566, 571]. And failure to file the petition for certiorari within a reasonable period of time renders the petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of laches [Municipality of Carcar v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, G.R. No. L-31628, December 27, 1982, 119 SCRA 392). Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29; Seno v. Mangubat, G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA 113]. The rule is that unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce an alleged right may, depending upon the circumstances, be destructive of the right itself. Verily, the laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights (Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt) [See Buenaventura v. David, 37 Phil. 435 (1918)]. In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984. Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie.

3. Finally, there is a more significant factor which bars the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner and against public respondents herein. It is precisely this for which prevents the Court from departing from the general application of the rules enunciated above. A cursory reading of the assailed orders issued by public respondent Minister Maceda of the MNR which were ed by the Office of the President, will disclose public policy consideration which effectively forestall judicial interference in the case at bar, Public respondents herein, upon whose shoulders rests the task of implementing the policy to develop and conserve the country's natural resources, have indicated an ongoing department evaluation of all timber license agreements entered into, and permits or licenses issued, under the previous dispensation. In fact, both the executive and legislative departments of the incumbent administration are presently taking stock of its environmental policies with regard to the utilization of timber lands and developing an agenda for future programs for their conservation and rehabilitation. The ongoing administrative reassessment is apparently in response to the renewed and growing global concern over the despoliation of forest lands and the utter disregard of their crucial role in sustaining a balanced ecological system. The legitimacy of such concern can hardly be disputed, most especially in this country. The Court takes judicial notice of the profligate waste of the country's forest resources which has not only resulted in the irreversible loss of flora and fauna peculiar to the region, but has produced even more disastrous and lasting economic and social effects. The delicate balance of nature having been upset, a vicious cycle of floods and droughts has been triggered and the supply of food and energy resources required by the people seriously depleted. While there is a desire to harness natural resources to amass profit and to meet the country's immediate financial requirements, the more essential need to ensure future generations of Filipinos of their survival in a viable environment demands effective and circumspect action from the government to check further denudation of whatever remains of the forest lands. Nothing less is expected of the government, in view of the clear constitutional command to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology. Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides: SEC. 16. The State shall protect and promote the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused by unbridled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand clear. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies [See Espinosa v. Makalintal, 79 Phil. 134 (1947); Coloso v. Board of Accountancy, 92 Phil. 938 (1953); Pajo v. Ago, 108 Phil. 905 (1960); Suarez v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-19828, February 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 461; Ganitano v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, G. R. No. L-21167, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 543; Villegas v. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-21352, November 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 877; Manuel v. Villena, G.R. No. L-28218, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 745; Lacuesta v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-33646, January 28, 1975, 62 SCRA 115; Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. v. Enage, G.R. No. L-30637, July 16, 1987, 152 SCRA 80]. More so where, as in the present case, the interests of a private logging company are pitted against that of the public at large on the pressing public policy issue of forest conservation. For this Court recognizes the wide latitude of discretion possessed by the government in determining the appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage natural resources, and the proper parties who should enjoy the privilege of utilizing these resources [Director of Forestry v. Munoz, G.R. No. L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183; Lim, Sr. v. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, G.R. No. L-26990, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 751]. Timber licenses, permits and

license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause [See Sections 3 (ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302]. In fine, the legal precepts highlighted in the foregoing discussion more than suffice to justify the Court's refusal to interfere in the DENR evaluation of timber licenses and permits issued under the previous regime, or to pre-empt the adoption of appropriate corrective measures by the department. Nevertheless, the Court cannot help but express its concern regarding alleged irregularities in the issuance of timber license agreements to a number of logging concessionaires. The grant of licenses or permits to exploit the country's timber resources, if done in contravention of the procedure outlined in the law, or as a result of fraud and undue influence exerted on department officials, is indicative of an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of the State's power to regulate the use and exploitation of forest resources. The alleged practice of bestowing "special favors" to preferred individuals, regardless of merit, would be an abuse of this power. And this Court will not be a party to a flagrant mockery of the avowed public policy of conservation enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, should the appropriate case be brought showing a clear grave abuse of discretion on the part of officials in the DENR and related bureaus with respect to the implementation of this public policy, the Court win not hesitate to step in and wield its authority, when invoked, in the exercise of judicial powers under the Constitution [Section 1, Article VIII]. However, petitioner having failed to make out a case showing grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents herein, the Court finds no basis to issue a writ of certiorari and to grant any of the affirmative reliefs sought. WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 111107 January 10, 1997 LOEONARDO A. PAAT, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Regional Executive Director (RED), Region 2 and JOVITO LAYUGAN, JR., in his capacity as Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), both of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO A. BACULI in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court at Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO and VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.:

Without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, may an action for replevin prosper to recover a movable property which is the subject matter of an administrative forfeiture proceeding in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended, entitled The Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines? Are the Secretary of DENR and his representatives empowered to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products in favor of the government? These are two fundamental questions presented before us for our resolution. The controversy on hand had its incipiency on May 19, 1989 when the truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman while on its way to Bulacan from San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan, was seized by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, for brevity) personnel in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found concealed in the truck. Petitioner Jovito Layugan, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) in Aritao, Cagayan, issued on May 23, 1989 an order of confiscation of the truck and gave the owner thereof fifteen (15) days within which to submit an explanation why the truck should not be forfeited. Private respondents, however, failed to submit the required explanation. On June 22, 1989, 1 Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan of DENR sustained petitioner Layugan's action of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truck invoking Section 68-A of Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277. Private respondents filed a letter of reconsideration dated June 28, 1989 of the June 22, 1989 order of Executive Director Baggayan, which was, however, denied in a subsequent order of July 12, 1989. 2 Subsequently, the case was brought by the petitioners to the Secretary of DENR pursuant to private respondents' statement in their letter dated June 28, 1989 that in case their letter for reconsideration would be denied then "this letter should be considered as an appeal to the Secretary." 3 Pending resolution however of the appeal, a suit for replevin, docketed as Civil Case 4031, was filed by the private respondents against petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan 4 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 of Cagayan, 5 which issued a writ ordering the return of the truck to private respondents. 6 Petitioner Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan filed a motion to dismiss with the trial court contending, inter alia, that private respondents had no cause of action for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated December 28, 1989. 7 Their motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with the respondent Court of Appeals which sustained the trial court's order ruling that the question involved is purely a legal question. 8 Hence, this present petition, 9with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, seeking to reverse the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals was filed by the petitioners on September 9, 1993. By virtue of the Resolution dated September 27, 1993, 10 the prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order of petitioners was granted by this Court. Invoking the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, petitioners aver that the trial court could not legally entertain the suit for replevin because the truck was under administrative seizure proceedings pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. Private respondents, on the other hand, would seek to avoid the operation of this principle asserting that the instant case falls within the exception of the doctrine upon the justification that (1) due process was violated because they were not given the chance to be heard, and (2) the seizure and forfeiture was unlawful on the grounds: (a) that the Secretary of DENR and his representatives have no authority to confiscate and forfeit conveyances utilized in transporting illegal forest products, and (b) that the truck as admitted by petitioners was not used in the commission of the crime. Upon a thorough and delicate scrutiny of the records and relevant jurisprudence on the matter, we are of the opinion that the plea of petitioners for reversal is in order.

This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before court's judicial power can be sought, The premature invocation of court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. 11 Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. 12 This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons, for one thing, availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that the courts of justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and to dispose of the case. However, we are not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. This doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is a violation of due process, 13 (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question, 14 (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, 15 (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned, 16 (5) when there is irreparable injury, 17 (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter, 18 (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable, 19 (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim, 20 (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings, 21(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. 22 In the case at bar, there is no question that the controversy was pending before the Secretary of DENR when it was forwarded to him following the denial by the petitioners of the motion for reconsideration of private respondents through the order of July 12, 1989. In their letter of reconsideration dated June 28, 1989, 23 private respondents clearly recognize the presence of an administrative forum to which they seek to avail, as they did avail, in the resolution of their case. The letter, reads, thus: xxx xxx xxx
If this motion for reconsideration does not merit your favorable action, then this letter should be considered as an appeal to the Secretary. 24

It was easy to perceive then that the private respondents looked up to the Secretary for the review and disposition of their case. By appealing to him, they acknowledged the existence of an adequate and plain remedy still available and open to them in the ordinary course of the law. Thus, they cannot now, without violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, seek court's intervention by filing an action for replevin for the grant of their relief during the pendency of an administrative proceedings. Moreover, it is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit filed by private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of

the administrative agency's prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. 25 In Felipe Ismael, Jr. and Co. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 26 which was reiterated in the recent case of Concerned Officials of MWSS vs. Vasquez, 27this Court held: Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused by unbriddled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand clear. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. To sustain the claim of private respondents would in effect bring the instant controversy beyond the pale of the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and fall within the ambit of excepted cases heretofore stated. However, considering the circumstances prevailing in this case, we can not but rule out these assertions of private respondents to be without merit. First, they argued that there was violation of due process because they did not receive the May 23, 1989 order of confiscation of petitioner Layugan. This contention has no leg to stand on. Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to be heard. 28 One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps many times more creditably and practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. 29 In administrative proceedings moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. 30 Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration, 31 as in the instant case, when private respondents were undisputedly given the opportunity to present their side when they filed a letter of reconsideration dated June 28, 1989 which was, however, denied in an order of July 12, 1989 of Executive Director Baggayan, In Navarro III vs.Damasco, 32 we ruled that : The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirements are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice or hearing. Second, private respondents imputed the patent illegality of seizure and forfeiture of the truck because the administrative officers of the DENR allegedly have no power to perform these acts under the law. They insisted that only the court is authorized to confiscate and forfeit conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products as can be gleaned from the second paragraph of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. The pertinent provision reads as follows: Sec. 68. . . . xxx xxx xxx The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipments,implements and tools illegaly [sic] used in the area where the timber or forest products are found. (Emphasis ours)

A reading, however, of the law persuades us not to go along with private respondents' thinking not only because the aforequoted provision apparently does not mention nor include "conveyances" that can be the subject of confiscation by the courts, but to a large extent, due to the fact that private respondents' interpretation of the subject provision unduly restricts the clear intention of the law and inevitably reduces the other provision of Section 68-A, which is quoted herein below: Sec. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department or His Duly Authorized Representative To Order Confiscation. In all cases of violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations and policies on the matter. (Emphasis ours) It is, thus, clear from the foregoing provision that the Secretary and his duly authorized representatives are given the authority to confiscate and forfeit any conveyances utilized in violating the Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations. The phrase "to dispose of the same" is broad enough to cover the act of forfeiting conveyances in favor of the government. The only limitation is that it should be made "in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter." In the construction of statutes, it must be read in such a way as to give effect to the purpose projected in the statute. 33 Statutes should be construed in the light of the object to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed, and they should be given such construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits intended. 34 In this wise, the observation of the Solicitor General is significant, thus: But precisely because of the need to make forestry laws "more responsive to present situations and realities" and in view of the "urgency to conserve the remaining resources of the country," that the government opted to add Section 68-A. This amendatory provision is an administrative remedy totally separate and distinct from criminal proceedings. More than anything else, it is intended to supplant the inadequacies that characterize enforcement of forestry laws through criminal actions. The preamble of EO 277-the law that added Section 68-A to PD 705-is most revealing: "WHEREAS, there is an urgency to conserve the remaining forest resources of the country for the benefit and welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos; WHEREAS, our forest resources may be effectively conserved and protected through the vigilant enforcement and implementation of our forestry laws, rules and regulations; WHEREAS, the implementation of our forestry laws suffers from technical difficulties, due to certain inadequacies in the penal provisions of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines; and WHEREAS, to overcome this difficulties, there is a need to penalize certain acts more responsive to present situations and realities;"
It is interesting to note that Section 68-A is a new provision authorizing the DENR to confiscate, not only "conveyances," but forest products as well. On the other

hand, confiscation of forest products by the "court" in a criminal action has long been provided for in Section 68. If as private respondents insist, the power on confiscation cannot be exercised except only through the court under Section 68, then Section 68-A would have no Purpose at all. Simply put, Section 68-A would not have provided any solution to the problem perceived in EO 277, supra. 35

Private respondents, likewise, contend that the seizure was illegal because the petitioners themselves admitted in the Order dated July 12, 1989 of Executive Director Baggayan that the truck of private respondents was not used in the commission of the crime. This order, a copy of which was given to and received by the counsel of private respondents, reads in part, viz.:
. . . while it is true that the truck of your client was not used by her in the commission of the crime, we uphold your claim that the truck owner is not liable for the crime and in no case could a criminal case be filed against her as provided under Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. . . 36

We observed that private respondents misread the content of the aforestated order and obviously misinterpreted the intention of petitioners. What is contemplated by the petitioners when they stated that the truck "was not used in the commission of the crime" is that it was not used in the commission of the crime of theft, hence, in no case can a criminal action be filed against the owner thereof for violation of Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners did not eliminate the possibility that the truck was being used in the commission of another crime, that is, the breach of Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277. In the same order of July 12, 1989, petitioners pointed out:
. . . However, under Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended and further amended by Executive Order No. 277 specifically provides for the confiscation of the conveyance used in the transport of forest products not covered by the required legal documents. She may not have been involved in the cutting and gathering of the product in question but the fact that she accepted the goods for a fee or fare the same is therefor liable. . . 37

Private respondents, however, contended that there is no crime defined and punishable under Section 68 other than qualified theft, so that, when petitioners admitted in the July 12, 1989 order that private respondents could not be charged for theft as provided for under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, then necessarily private respondents could not have committed an act constituting a crime under Section 68. We disagree. For clarity, the provision of Section 68 of P.D. 705 before its amendment by E.O. 277 and the provision of Section 1 of E.O. No. 277 amending the aforementioned Section 68 are reproduced herein, thus: Sec. 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code . . . (Emphasis ours; Section 68, P.D. 705 before its amendment by E.O. 277) Sec. 1. Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products without license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from

any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall bepunished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code . . . (Emphasis ours; Section 1, E.O. No. 277 amending Section 68, P.D. 705 as amended) With the introduction of Executive Order No. 277 amending Section 68 of P.D. 705, the act of cutting, gathering, collecting, removing, or possessing forest products without authority constitutes a distinct offense independent now from the crime of theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, but the penalty to be imposed is that provided for under Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. This is clear from the language of Executive Order No. 277 when it eliminated the phrase "shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code" and inserted the words "shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code". When the statute is clear and explicit, there is hardly room for any extended court ratiocination or rationalization of the law. 38 From the foregoing disquisition, it is clear that a suit for replevin can not be sustained against the petitioners for the subject truck taken and retained by them for administrative forfeiture proceedings in pursuant to Section 68-A of the P.D. 705, as amended. Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action in view of the private respondents' failure to exhaust administrative remedies should have been the proper course of action by the lower court instead of assuming jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuing the writ ordering the return of the truck. Exhaustion of the remedies in the administrative forum, being a condition precedent prior to one's recourse to the courts and more importantly, being an element of private respondents' right of action, is too significant to be waylaid by the lower court. It is worth stressing at this point, that a suit for replevin is founded solely on the claim that the defendant wrongfully withholds the property sought to be recovered. It lies to recover possession of personal chattels that are unlawfully detained. 39 "To detain" is defined as to mean "to hold or keep in custody," 40 and it has been held that there is tortious taking whenever there is an unlawful meddling with the property, or an exercise or claim of dominion over it, without any pretense of authority or right; this, without manual seizing of the property is sufficient. 41 Under the Rules of Court, it is indispensable in replevin proceeding that the plaintiff must show by his own affidavit that he is entitled to the possession of property, that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, alleging the cause of detention, that the same has not been taken for tax assessment, or seized under execution, or attachment, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure, and the actual value of the property. 42 Private respondents miserably failed to convince this Court that a wrongful detention of the subject truck obtains in the instant case. It should be noted that the truck was seized by the petitioners because it was transporting forest products without the required permit of the DENR in manifest contravention of Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O 277. Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended, unquestionably warrants the confiscation as well as the disposition by the Secretary of DENR or his duly authorized representatives of the conveyances used in violating the provision of forestry laws. Evidently, the continued possession or detention of the truck by the petitioners for administrative forfeiture proceeding is legally permissible, hence, no wrongful detention exists in the case at bar. Moreover, the suit for replevin is never intended as a procedural tool to question the orders of confiscation and forfeiture issued by the DENR in pursuance to the authority given under P.D. 705, as amended. Section 8 of the said law is explicit that actions taken by the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development concerning the enforcement of the provisions of the said law are subject to

review by the Secretary of DENR and that courts may not review the decisions of the Secretary except through a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition. It reads: Sec. 8. REVIEW All actions and decisions of the Director are subject to review, motu propio or upon appeal of any person aggrieved thereby, by the Department Head whose decision shall be final and executory after the lapse of thirty (30) days from the receipt of the aggrieved party of said decision, unless appealed to the President in accordance with Executive Order No. 19, Series of 1966. The Decision of the Department Head may not be reviewed by the courts except through a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated October 16, 1991 and its Resolution dated July 14, 1992 are hereby SET ASIDE AND REVERSED; the Restraining Order promulgated on September 27, 1993 is hereby made permanent; and the Secretary of DENR is directed to resolve the controversy with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 104988 June 18, 1996 MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and ATTY. VINCENT A. ROBLES, Chief, Special Actions and Investigations Division, DENR, respondents. G.R. No. 106424 June 18, 1996 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and RI CHUY PO, respondents. G.R. No. 123784 June 18, 1996 MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. VINCENT A. ROBLES, Chief, Special Actions and Investigation Division, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), ATTY. NESTOR V. GAPUSAN, TIRSO P. PARIAN, JR., and FELIPE H. CALLORINA, JR., respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:p The first and third case, G.R. No. 104988 and G.R. No. 123784, were originally assigned to the Second and Third Divisions of the Court, respectively. They were subsequently consolidated with the second, a case of the Court en banc.

Petitioner, a domestic corporation with principal office at Nos. 1350-1352 Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila, and with a Lumberyard at Fortune Street, Fortune Village, Paseo de Blas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, was duly registered as a lumber dealer with the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) under Certificate of Registration No. NRD-4-092590-0469. Its permit as such was to expire on 25 September 1990. Respondent Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., and respondent Atty. Vincent A. Robles were, during all the time material to these cases, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Chief of the Special Actions and Investigation Division (SAID) of the DENR, respectively. The material operative facts are as follows: On 1 April 1990, acting on an information that a huge stockpile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the petitioner in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, the SAID organized a team of foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct surveillance at the said lumberyard. In the course thereof, the team members saw coming out from the lumberyard the petitioner's truck, with Plate No. CCK-322, loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions. Since the driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded them at the DENR compound at Visayas Avenue, Quezon City. 1 The team was not able to gain entry into the premises because of the refusal of the owner. 2 On 3 April 1990, the team was able to secure a search warrant from Executive Judge Adriano R. Osorio of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. By virtue thereof, the team seized on that date from the petitioner's lumberyard four truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings, and slabs; a negligible number of narra lumber; and approximately 200,000 board feet of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa. 3 On 4 April 1990, the team returned to the premises of the petitioner's lumberyard in Valenzuela and placed under administrative seizure the remaining stockpile of almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber with a total volume of 311,000 board feet because the petitioner failed to produce upon demand the corresponding certificate of lumber origin, auxiliary invoices, tally sheets, and delivery receipts from the source of the invoices covering the lumber to prove the legitimacy of their source and origin. 4 Parenthetically, it may be stated that under an administrative seizure the owner retains the physical possession of the seized articles. Only an inventory of the articles is taken and signed by the owner or his representative. The owner is prohibited from disposing them until further orders. 5 On 10 April 1990, counsel for the petitioner sent a letter to Robles requesting an extension of fifteen days from 14 April 1990 to produce the required documents covering the seized articles because some of them, particularly the certificate of lumber origin, were allegedly in the Province of Quirino Robles denied the motion on the ground that the documents being required from the petitioner must accompany the lumber or forest products placed under seizure. 6 On 11 April 1990, Robles submitted his memorandum-report recommending to Secretary Factoran the following: 1. Suspension and subsequent cancellation of the lumber Dealer's Permit of Mustang Lumber, Inc. for operating an unregistered lumberyard and resaw mill and possession of Almaciga Lumber (a banned specie) without the required documents;

2. Confiscation of the lumber seized at the Mustang Lumberyard including the truck with Plate No. CCK-322 and the lumber loaded herein [sic] now at the DENR compound in the event its owner fails to submit documents showing legitimacy of the source of said lumber within ten days from date of seizure; 3. Filing of criminal charges against Mr. Ri Chuy Po, owner of Mustang Lumber Inc. and Mr. Ruiz, or if the circumstances warrant for illegal possession of narra and almaciga lumber and shorts if and when recommendation no. 2 pushes through;
4. Confiscation of Trucks with Plate No. CCS-639 and CDV. 458 as well as the lumber loaded therein for transport lumber using "recycled" documents. 7

On 23 April 1990, Secretary Factoran issued an order suspending immediately the petitioner's lumber-dealer's permit No. NRD-4-092590-0469 and directing the petitioner to explain in writing within fifteen days why its lumber-dealer's permit should not be cancelled. On the same date, counsel for the petitioner sent another letter to Robles informing the latter that the petitioner had already secured the required documents and was ready to submit them. None, however, was submitted. 8 On 3 May 1990, Secretary Factoran issued another order wherein, after reciting the events which took place on 1 April and 3 April 1990, he ordered "CONFISCATED in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with law" the approximately 311,000 board feet of lauan, supa, and almaciga lumber, shorts, and sticks found inside the petitioner's lumberyard. 9 On 11 July 1990, the petitioner filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a restraining order or preliminary injunction against Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., and Atty. Vincent A. Robles. The case (hereinafter, the FIRST CIVIL CASE) was docketed as Civil Case No. 90-53648 and assigned to Branch 35 of the said court. The petitioner questioned therein (a) the seizure on 1 April 1990, without any search and seizure order issued by a judge, of its truck with Plate No. CCK-322 and its cargo of assorted lumber consisting of apitong, tanguile, and lauan of different sizes and dimensions with a total value of P38,000.00; and (b) the orders of Secretary Factoran of 23 April 1990 for lack of prior notice and hearing and of 3 May 1990 for violation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. On 17 September 1990, in response to reports that violations of P.D. No. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines), as amended, were committed and acting upon instruction of Robles and under Special Order No. 897, series of 1990, a team of DENR agents went to the business premises of the petitioner located at No. 1352 Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila. The team caught the petitioner operating as a lumber dealer although its lumber-dealer's permit had already been suspended or 23 April 1990. Since the gate of the petitioner's lumberyard was open, the team went inside and saw an owner-type jeep with a trailer loaded with lumber. Upon investigation, the team was informed that the lumber loaded on the trailer was to be delivered to the petitioner's customer. It also came upon the sales invoice covering the transaction. The members of the team then introduced themselves to the caretaker, one Ms. Chua, who turned out to be the wife of the petitioner's president and general manager, Mr. Ri Chuy Po, who was then out of town. The team's photographer was able to take photographs of the stockpiles of lumber including newly cut ones, fresh dust around sawing or cutting machineries and equipment, and the transport vehicles loaded with lumber. The team thereupon effected a constructive seizure of approximately 20,000 board feet of lauan lumber in assorted sizes stockpiled in the premises by issuing a receipt therefor. 10

As a consequence of this 17 September 1990 incident, the petitioner filed with the RTC of Manila a petition forcertiorari and prohibition. The case (hereinafter, the SECOND CIVIL CASE) was docketed as Civil Case No. 90-54610 and assigned to Branch 24 of the said court. In the meantime, Robles filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a complaint against the petitioner's president and general manager, Ri Chuy Po, for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277. After appropriate preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor, Claro Arellano, handed down a resolution 11whose dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that an information be filed against respondent Ri Chuy Po for illegal possession of approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber consisting of almaciga and supa and for illegal shipment of almaciga and lauan in violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705 as amended by E.O. 277, series of 1987.
It is further recommended that the 30,000 bd. ft. of narra shorts, trimmings and slabs covered by legal documents be released to the rightful owner, Malupa. 12

This resolution was approved by Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello III, who served as Chairman of the Task Force on Illegal Logging." 13 On the basis of that resolution, an information was filed on 5 June 1991 by the DOJ with Branch 172 of the RTC of Valenzuela, charging Ri Chuy Po with the violation of Section 58 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 324-V-91 (hereinafter, the CRIMINAL CASE). The accusatory portion of the information reads as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of April 1990, or prior to or subsequent thereto, within the premises and vicinity of Mustang Lumber, Inc. in Fortune Village, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, feloniously and unlawfully have in his possession truckloads of almaciga and lauan and approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa, without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations. 14

On 7 June 1991, Branch 35 of the RTC of Manila rendered its decision 15 in the FIRST CIVIL CASE, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment in this case is rendered as follows: 1. The Order of Respondent Secretary of the DENR, the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., dated 3 May 1990 ordering the confiscation in favor of the Government the approximately 311,000 board feet of Lauan, supa, end almaciga Lumber, shorts and sticks, found inside and seized from the Lumberyard of the petitioner at Fortune Drive, Fortune Village, Paseo de Blas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, on April 4, 1990 (Exhibit 10), is hereby set aside and vacated, and instead the respondents are required to report and bring to the Hon. Adriano Osorio, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, NCR, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, the said 311,000 board feet of Lauan, supa and almaciga Lumber, shorts and sticks, to be dealt with as directed by Law; 2. The respondents are required to initiate and prosecute the appropriate action before the proper court regarding the Lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes

and dimensions Loaded in petitioner's truck bearing Plate No. CCK-322 which were seized on April 1, 1990; 3. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the Court on August 2, 1990 shall be rendered functus oficio upon compliance by the respondents with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this judgment;. 4. Action on the prayer of the petitioner that the Lauan, supa and almaciga lumber, shorts and sticks mentioned above in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this judgment be returned to said petitioner is withheld in this case until after the proper court has taken cognizance and determined how those Lumber, shorts and sticks should be disposed of; and 5. The petitioner is ordered to pay the costs. SO ORDERED. In resolving the said case, the trial court held that the warrantless search and seizure on 1 April 1990 of the petitioner's truck, which was moving out from the petitioner's lumberyard in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, loaded with large volumes of lumber without covering document showing the legitimacy of its source or origin did not offend the constitutional mandate that search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant. The situation fell under one of the settled and accepted exceptions where warrantless search and seizure is justified, viz., a search of a moving vehicle. 16 As to the seizure of a large volume of almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber and shorts effected on 4 April 1990, the trial court ruled that the said seizure was a continuation of that made the previous day and was still pursuant to or by virtue of the search warrant issued by Executive Judge Osorio whose validity the petitioner did not even question. 17 And, although the search warrant did not specifically mention almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber and shorts, their seizure was valid because it is settled that the executing officer is not required to ignore contrabands observed during the conduct of the search. 18 The trial court, however, set aside Secretary Factoran's order of 3 May 1990 ordering the confiscation of the seized articles in favor of the Government for the reason that since the articles were seized pursuant to the search warrant issued by Executive Judge Osorio they should have been returned to him in compliance with the directive in the warrant. As to the propriety of the 23 April 1990 order of Secretary Factoran, the trial court ruled that the same had been rendered moot and academic by the expiration of the petitioner's lumber dealer's permit on 25 September 1990, a fact the petitioner admitted in its memorandum. The petitioner forthwith appealed from the decision in the FIRST CIVIL CASE to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the appeal as CA-G.R. SP No. 25510. On 7 July 1991, accused Ri Chuy Po filed in the CRIMINAL CASE a Motion to Quash and/or to Suspend Proceedings based on the following grounds: (a) the information does not charge an offense, for possession oflumber, as opposed to timber, is not penalized in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and even grantingarguendo that lumber falls within the purview of the said section, the same may not be used in evidence against him for they were taken by virtue of an illegal seizure; and (b) Civil Case No. 90-53648 of Branch 35 of the RTC of Manila, the FIRST CIVIL CASE, then pending before the Court of Appeals, which involves the legality of the seizure, raises a prejudicial question. 19

The prosecution opposed the motion alleging that lumber is included in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and possession thereof without the required legal documents is penalized therein. It referred to Section 3.2 of DENR Administrative Order No. 19, series of 1989, for the definitions of timber and lumber, and then argued that exclusion of lumber from Section 68 would defeat the very purpose of the law, i.e., to minimize, if not halt, illegal logging that has resulted in the rapid denudation of our forest resources. 20 In her order of 16 August 1991 in the CRIMINAL CASE, 21 respondent Judge Teresita DizonCapulong granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case on the ground that "possession of lumber without the legal documents required by forest laws and regulations is not a crime. 22 Its motion for reconsideration having been denied in the order of 18 October 1991, 23 the People filed a petition for certiorari with this Court in G.R. No. 106424, wherein it contends that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash and in dismissing the case. On 29 November 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision 24 in CA-G.R. SP No. 25510 dismissing for lack of merit the petitioner's appeal from the decision in the FIRST CIVIL CASE and affirming the trial court's rulings on the issues raised. As to the claim that the truck was not carrying contraband articles since there is no law punishing the possession of lumber, and that lumber is not timber whose possession without the required legal documents is unlawful under P.D. No. 705, as amended, the Court of Appeals held:
This undue emphasis on lumber or the commercial nature of the forest product involved has always been foisted by those who claim to be engaged in the legitimate business of lumber dealership. But what is important to consider is that when appellant was required to present the valid documents showing its acquisition and lawful possession of the lumber in question, it failed to present any despite the period of extension granted to it. 25

The petitioner's motion to reconsider the said decision was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 3 March 1992. 26 Hence, the petitioner came to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 104988, which was filed on 2 May 1992. 27 On 24 September 1992, Branch 24 of the RTC of Manila handed down a decision in the SECOND CIVIL CASE dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition because (a) the petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies; (b) when the seizure was made on 17 September 1990 the petitioner could not lawfully sell lumber, as its license was still under suspension; (c) the seizure was valid under Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705, as amended; and (d) the seizure was justified as a warrantless search and seizure under Section 80 of P.D. No. 705, as amended. The petitioner appealed from the decision to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the appeal as CA-G.R. SP No.33778. In its decision 28 of 31 July 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 33778 for lack of merit and sustained the grounds relied upon by the trial court in dismissing the SECOND CIVIL CASE. Relying on the definition of "lumber" by Webster, viz., "timber or logs, especially after being prepared for the market," and by the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, viz., "wood, esp. when suitable or adapted for various building purposes," the respondent Court held that since wood is included in the definition offorest product in Section 3(q) of P.D. No. 705, as amended, lumber is necessarily included in Section 68 under the term forest product.

The Court of Appeals further emphasized that a forest officer or employee can seize the forest product involved in a violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 pursuant to Section 80 thereof, as amended by P.D. No. 1775, which provides in part as follows: Sec. 80. Arrest, Institution of Criminal Actions. -- A forest officer or employee of the Bureau or any personnel of the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police shall arrest even without warrant any person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of the offenses defined in this chapter. He shall also seize and confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and equipment used in committing the offense, or the forest products cut, gathered or taken by the offender in the process of committing the offense. Among the offenses punished in the chapter referred to in said Section 80 are the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products or possession of timber or other forest products without the required legal documents. Its motion to reconsider the decision having been denied by the Court of Appeals in the resolution of 6 February 1996, the petitioner filed with this Court on 27 February 1996 a petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No.123784. We shall now resolve these three cases starting with G.R. No. 106424 with which the other two were consolidated. G.R. No. 106424 The petitioner had moved to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 324-V-91 on the ground that it does not charge an offense. Respondent Judge Dizon-Capulong granted the motion reasoning that the subject matter of the information in the CRIMINAL CASE is LUMBER, which is neither "timber" nor "other forest product" under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and hence, possession thereof without the required legal documents is not prohibited and penalized under the said section. Under paragraph (a), Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, an information may be quashed on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense. It has been said that "the test for the correctness of this ground is the sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense, 29 and matters aliunde will not be considered." Anent the sufficiency of the information, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the information state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. Respondent Ri Chuy Po is charged with the violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277, which provides: Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License. -- Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the

penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found. Punished then in this section are (1) the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products from the places therein mentioned without any authority; and (b) possession of timber forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations. Indeed, the word lumber does not appear in Section 68. But conceding ex gratia that this omission amounts to an exclusion of lumber from the section's coverage, do the facts averred in the information in the CRIMINAL CASE validly charge a violation of the said section? A cursory reading of the information readily leads us to an infallible conclusion that lumber is not solely its subject matter. It is evident therefrom that what are alleged to be in the possession of the private respondent, without the required legal documents, are truckloads of (1) almaciga and lauan; and (2) approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa. The "almaciga and lauan" specifically mentioned in no. (1) are not described as "lumber." They cannot refer to the "lumber" in no. (2) because they are separated by the words "approximately 200,000 bd. ft." with the conjunction "and," and not with the preposition "of." They must then be raw forest products or, more specifically, timbers under Section 3(q) of P.D. No. 705, as amended, which reads: Sec. 3. Definitions. -xxx xxx xxx (q) Forest product means timber, firewood, bark, tree top, resin, gum, wood, oil, honey, beeswax, nipa, rattan, or other forest plant, the associated water, fish game, scenic, historical, recreational and geological resources in forest lands. It follows then that lumber is only one of the items covered by the information. The public and the private respondents obviously miscomprehended the averments in the information. Accordingly, even if lumber is not included in Section 68, the other items therein as noted above fall within the ambit of the said section, and as to them, the information validly charges an offense. Our respected brother, Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, suggests in his dissenting opinion that this Court go beyond the four corners of the information for enlightenment as to whether the information exclusively refers to lumber. With the aid of the pleadings and the annexes thereto, he arrives at the conclusion that "only lumber has been envisioned in the indictment."

The majority is unable to subscribe to his view. First, his proposition violates the rule that only the facts alleged in the information vis-a-vis the law violated must be considered in determining whether an information charges an offense. Second, the pleadings and annexes he resorted to are insufficient to justify his conclusion. On the contrary, the Joint Affidavit of Melencio Jalova, Jr., and Araman Belleng, which is one of the annexes he referred to, 30 cannot lead one to infer that what the team seized was all lumber. Paragraph 8 thereof expressly states: 8. That when inside the compound, the team found approximately four (4) truckloads ofnarra shorts, trimmings and slabs and a negligible amount of narra lumber, and approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa which are classified as prohibited wood species. (emphasis supplied) In the same vein, the dispositive portion of the resolution 31 of the investigating prosecutor, which served as the basis for the filing of the information, does not limit itself to lumber; thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that an information be filed against respondent Ri Chuy Po for illegal possession of 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber consisting of almaciga and supa and for illegal shipment of almaciga and lauan in violation of Sec. 63 of PD 705 as amended by E.O. 277, series of 1987. (emphasis supplied) The foregoing disquisitions should not, in any manner, be construed as an affirmance of the respondent Judge's conclusion that lumber is excluded from the coverage of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and thus possession thereof without the required legal documents is not a crime. On the contrary, this Court rules that such possession is penalized in the said section because lumber is included in the term timber. The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber. While the former is included in forest products as defined in paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in paragraph (aa) of the same section in the definition of "Processing plant," which reads: (aa) Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wallbond, blockboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products. This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter alia, as "timber or logs after being prepared for the market."32 Simply put, lumber is a processed log or timber. It is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. 33 And insofar as possession of timber without the required legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between raw or processed timber. Neither should we. Ubi lex non distinguere debemus.

Indisputably, respondent Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong of Branch 172 of the RTC of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash the information in the CRIMINAL CASE and in dismissing the said case. G.R. No. 104988 We find this petition to be without merit. The petitioner has miserably failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed decision of 29 November 1991. It was duly established that on 1 April 1990, the petitioner's truck with Plate No. CCK-322 was coming out from the petitioner's lumberyard loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of different sizes and dimensions which were not accompanied with the required invoices and transport documents. The seizure of such truck and its cargo was a valid exercise of the power vested upon a forest officer or employee by Section 80 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by P.D. No. 1775. Then, too, as correctly held by the trial court and the Court of Appeals in the FIRST CIVIL CASE, the search was conducted on a moving vehicle. Such a search could be lawfully conducted without a search warrant. Search of a moving vehicle is one of the five doctrinally accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate 34 that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the existence of probable cause. The other exceptions are (3) search as an incident to a lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence in plain view, (3) customs searches, and (4) consented warrantless search. 35 We also affirm the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the search on 4 April 1990 was a continuation of the search on 3 April 1990 done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Executive Judge Osorio. Under Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a search warrant has a lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served at any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, the same may be continued the following day or days until completed. Thus, when the search under a warrant on one day was interrupted, it may be continued under the same warrant the following day, provided it is still within the ten-day period. 36 As to the final plea of the petitioner that the search was illegal because possession of lumber without the required legal documents is not illegal under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, since lumber is neither specified therein nor included in the term forest product, the same hardly merits further discussion in view of our ruling in G.R. No. 106424. G.R. No. 123784 The allegations and arguments set forth in the petition in this case palpally fail to shaw prima facie that a reversible error has been committed by the Court of Appeals in its challenged decision of 31 July 1995 and resolution of 6 February 1996 in CA-G.R. SP No. 33778. We must, forthwith, deny it for utter want of merit. There is no need to require the respondents to comment on the petition. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the trial court in the SECOND CIVIL CASE. The petitioner never disputed the fact that its lumber-dealer's license or permit had been suspended by Secretary Factoran on 23 April 1990. The suspension was never lifted, and since the license had only a lifetime of up to 25 September 1990, the petitioner has absolutely no right to possess, sell, or otherwise dispose of lumber. Accordingly, Secretary Factoran or his authorized representative had the authority to seize the Lumber pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705, as amended, which provides as follows:

Sec. 68-A Administrative Authority of the Department Head or his Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. -- In all cases of violations of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized representative may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned. . . . The petitioner's insistence that possession or sale of lumber is not penalized must also fail view of our disquisition and ruling on the same issue in G.R. No. 106424. Besides, the issue is totally irrelevant in the SECOND CIVIL CASE which involves administrative seizure as a consequence of the violation of the suspension of the petitioner's license as lumber dealer. All told then, G.R. No. 104988 and G.R. No. 123784 are nothing more than rituals to cover up blatant violations of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 705), as amended. They are presumably trifling attempts to block the serious efforts of the DENR to enforce the decree, efforts which deserve the commendation of the public in light of the urgent need to take firm and decisive action against despoilers of our forests whose continuous destruction only ensures to the generations to come, if not the present, an inheritance of parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The Government must not tire in its vigilance to protect the environment by prosecuting without fear or favor any person who dares to violate our laws for the utilization and protection of our forests. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered 1. (a) GRANTING the petition in G.R. No. 106424; (b) SETTING ASIDE and ANNULLING, for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion, the challenged orders of 16 August 1991 and 18 October 1991 of respondent Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, Branch 172, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 324-V-91, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ri Chuy Po"; (c) REINSTATING the information in the said criminal case; and (d) DIRECTING the respondent Judge or her successor to hear and decide the case with purposeful dispatch; and 2. DENYING the petitions in G.R. No. 104988 and in G. R. No. 123784 for utter failure of the petitioner to show that the respondent Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decisions of 29 November 1991 in CA-G.R. SP No. 25510 in the FIRST CIVIL CASE and of 31 July 1995 in CA-G.R. SP No. 33778 on the SECOND CIVIL CASE. Costs against the petitioner in each of these three cases. SO ORDERED.