EN BANC [G.R. No. 103882.

November 25, 1998]

and conditions therefor. 5he said 8rdinance was amended on April 0%, %&5& b$ 8rdinance No. %5/, which authori"ed the Republic Real Estate Corporation (RR"C$) to reclaim foreshore lands of #asa$ Cit$ under certain terms and conditions. 8n April 04, %&5&, #asa$ Cit$ and RREC entered into an A:reement 203 for the reclamation of the foreshore lands in #asa$ Cit$.

REPUBLIC OF T E P ILIPPINE!, petitioner, vs. T E ONOR"BLE COURT OF "PPE"L! "N# REPUBLIC RE"L E!T"TE CORPOR"TION, respondents. CULTUR"L CENTER OF T E P ILIPPINE!, intervenor. [G.R. No. 1052$%. November 25, 1998]

8n 1ecember %&, %&'%, the Republic of the #hilippines (Republic$) filed a Complaint2(3 for Recover$ of #ossession and 1ama:es with ;rit of #reliminar$ #reventive !n<unction and 9andator$ !n<unction, doc)eted as Civil Case No. 000&4# before the former Court of irst !nstance of Ri"al, (Branch 7, Pasay City)# 8n 9arch 5, %&'0, the Republic of the #hilippines filed an Amended Complaint 243 =uestionin: sub<ect A:reement between #asa$ Cit$ and RREC (".hibit P$) on the :rounds that the sub<ect4matter of such A:reement is outside the commerce of man, that its terms and conditions are violative of RA %/&&, and that the said A:reement was e*ecuted without an$ public biddin:. 5he Answers253 of RREC and #asa$ Cit$, dated 9arch %. and 9arch %4, %&'0, respectivel$, averred that the sub<ect4matter of said A:reement is within the commerce of man, that the phrase >foreshore lands? within the contemplation of RA %/&& has a broader meanin: than the cited definition of the term in the ;ords and #hrases and in the ;ebster@s 5hird New !nternational 1ictionar$ and the plans and specifications of the reclamation involved were approved b$ the authorities concerned. 8n April 0',%&'0, +ud:e An:el H. 9o<ica, (now !ecease!) of the former Court of irst !nstance of Ri"al (Branch 7, Pasay City) issued an 8rder2'3 the dispositive portion of which was to the followin: effect6 13"R"0*R", the court hereby or!ers the !efen!ants, their agents, an! all persons clai,ing un!er the,, to refrain fro, 4further reclai,ing or co,,itting acts of !ispossession or !ispoilation o er any area within the 5anila Bay or the 5anila Bay Beach Resort$, until further or!ers of the court#$ 8n the followin: da$, the same trial court issued a writ of preliminar$ in<unction 273 which en<oined the defendants, RREC and #asa$ Cit$, their a:ents, and all persons claimin: under them >from further reclaimin: or committin: acts of dispossession?. 5hereafter, a 9otion to !ntervene 2/3, dated +une 07, %&'0, was filed b$ +ose A. Bautista, Emiliano Custodio, Renato Custodio, Ro:er de la Rosa, Belen -on"ales, Norma 9artine", Emilia E. #ae", Ambrosio R. #arreno, Antolin 9. 8reta, ,i*to A. 8rosa, #ablo ,. ,armiento, +esus Bu<uico, Camora Enterprises, !nc., !ndustrial and Commercial actors, !nc., 9etropolitan 1istributors of the #hilippines, and Ba$view Hotel, !nc. statin: inter alia that the$ were bu$ers of lots in the 9anila Ba$ area bein: reclaimed b$ RREC, whose ri:hts would be affected b$ whatever decision to be rendered in the case. 5he 9otion was :ranted b$ the trial court and the Answer attached thereto admitted.2&3 5he defendants and the intervenors then moved to dismiss 2%.3 the Complaint of the Republic, placin: reliance on ,ection ( of Republic Act No. 5%/7, which reads6 (ec# 2# 5iscellaneous Pro6ects

P"!"& CIT& "N# REPUBLIC RE"L E!T"TE CORPOR"TION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF "PPE"L! '() REPUBLIC OF T E P ILIPPINE!, respondents. #ECI!ION PURI!I*", J.+ At bar are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Here, the Court is confronted with a case commenced before the then Court of irst !nstance (now Regional Trial Court) of Ri"al in #asa$ Cit$, in %&'%, more than ( decades bac), that has spanned si* administrations of the Republic and outlasted the tenure of ten (10) Chief +ustices of the ,upreme Court. !n -.R. No. %.(//0, the Republic of the #hilippines, as petitioner, assails the 1ecision, dated +anuar$ 0&, %&&0 and Amended 1ecision, dated April 0/, %&&0, of the Court of Appeals 2%3, which affirmed with modification the 1ecision of the former Court of irst !nstance of Ri"al (Branch 7, Pasay City) in Civil Case No. 000&4#, entitled Republic of the Philippines ersus Pasay City an! Republic Real "state Corporation#$ 5he facts that matter are, as follows6 Republic Act No. %/&& (R% 1&''$), which was approved on +une 00, %&57, authori"ed the reclamation of foreshore lands b$ chartered cities and municipalities. ,ection ! of said law, reads6 ("CT)*+ 1# %uthority is hereby grante! to all ,unicipalities an! chartere! cities to un!erta-e an! carry out at their own e.pense the recla,ation by !re!ging, filling, or other ,eans, of any foreshore lan!s bor!ering the,, an! to establish, pro i!e, construct, ,aintain an! repair proper an! a!e/uate !oc-ing an! harbor facilities as such ,unicipalities an! chartere! cities ,ay !eter,ine in consultation with the (ecretary of 0inance an! the (ecretary of Public 1or-s an! Co,,unications#$ 8n 9a$ ', %&5/, invo)in: the aforecited provision of RA %/&&, the #asa$ Cit$ Council passed 8rdinance No. %0%, for the reclamation of 5hree Hundred (200) hectares of foreshore lands in #asa$ Cit$, empowerin: the Cit$ 9a$or to award and enter into reclamation contracts, and prescribin: terms

* * * ,# 0or the construction of seawall an! li,ite! access highway fro, the south boun!ary of the City of 5anila to Ca ite City, to the south, an! fro, the north boun!ary of the City of 5anila to the ,unicipality of 5ari eles, pro ince of Bataan, to the north, inclu!ing the recla,ation of the foreshore an! sub,erge! areas7 Pro i!e!, That priority in the construction of such seawalls, highway an! atten!ant recla,ation wor-s shall be gi en to any corporation an!8or corporations that ,ay offer to un!erta-e at its own e.pense such pro6ects, in which case the Presi!ent of the Philippines ,ay, after co,petiti e bi!!ing, awar! contracts for the construction of such pro6ects, with the winning bi!!er shoul!ering all costs thereof, the sa,e to be pai! in ter,s of percentage fee of the contractor which shall not e.cee! fifty percent of the area reclai,e! by the contractor an! shall represent full co,pensation for the purpose, the pro isions of the Public 9an! 9aw concerning !isposition of reclai,e! an! foreshore lan!s to the contrary notwithstan!ing7 Pro i!e!, finally, that the foregoing pro isions an! those of other laws, e.ecuti e or!ers, rules an! regulations to the contrary notwithstan!ing, e.isting rights, pro6ects an!8or contracts of city or ,unicipal go ern,ents for the recla,ation of foreshore an! sub,erge! lan!s shall be respecte!# . . .#$ Dunderscorin: oursE ,ince the aforecited law provides that e*istin: contracts shall be respected, movants contended that the issues raised b$ the pleadin:s have become >moot, academic and of no further validit$ or effect.? 9eanwhile, the #asa$ Aaw and Conscience Fnion, !nc. (P9C:$) moved to intervene2%%3, alle:in: as le:al interest in the matter in liti:ation the avowed purpose of the or:ani"ation for the promotion of :ood :overnment in #asa$ Cit$. !n its 8rder of +une %., %&'&, the lower court of ori:in allowed the said intervention2%03. 8n 9arch 04, %&70, the trial court of ori:in came out with a 1ecision, disposin:, thus6 13"R"0*R", after carefully consi!ering (1) the original co,plaint, (;) the first %,en!e! Co,plaint, (2) the %nswer of <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation to the first %,en!e! Co,plaint, (=) the %nswer of <efen!ant Pasay City to the first %,en!e! Co,plaint, (>) the (econ! %,en!e! Co,plaint, (?) the %nswer of <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation to the (econ! %,en!e! Co,plaint, (7) the %nswer of <efen!ant Pasay City to the (econ! %,en!e! Co,plaint, (&) the 5e,oran!u, in (upport of Preli,inary )n6unction of Plaintiff, (') the 5e,oran!u, )n (upport of the *pposition to the )ssuance of Preli,inary )n6unction of <efen!ant Pasay City an! <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation, (10) the %nswer in )nter ention of )nter enors Bautista, et# al#, (11) Plaintiff@s *pposition to 5otion to )nter ene, (1;) the Reply to *pposition to 5otion to )nter ene of )nter enors Bautista, et# al# , (12) the (tipulation of 0acts by all the parties, (1=) the 5otion for 9ea e to )nter ene of )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc#, (1>) the *pposition to 5otion 0or 9ea e to )nter ene of )nter enors Bautista, et# al#, (1?) the Reply of )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc#, (17) the (upple,ent to *pposition to 5otion to )nter ene of <efen!ant Pasay City an! Republic Real "state Corporation, (1&) the Co,plaint in )nter ention of )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc#, (1') the %nswer of <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation, (;0) the %nswer of )nter enor Aose 9# Bautista, et# al#, to Co,plaint in )nter ention, (;1) the 5otion to <is,iss of <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation, an! )nter enors Bautista, et# al#, (;;) the *pposition of

Plaintiff to sai! 5otion to <is,iss, (;2) the *pposition of )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc#, (;=) the 5e,oran!u, of the <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation, (;>) the 5e,oran!u, for the )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc#, (;?) the 5anifestation of Plaintiff file! by the *ffice of the (olicitor Beneral, an! all the !ocu,entary e i!ence by the parties to wit7 (a) Plaintiff@s ".hibits %$ to CCCD=$, (b) <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation@s ".hibits 1DRR"C$ to =0Da$ an! (c) )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc@s#, ".hibits %DP9%C:$ to CDP9%C:$, the Court hereby7 (1) <enies the 5otion to <is,iss$ file! on Aanuary 10, 1'?&, by <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation an! )nter enors Bautista, et# al#, as it is the fin!ing of this Court that Republic %ct +o# >1&7 was not passe! by Congress to cure any !efect in the or!inance an! agree,ent in /uestion an! that the passage of sai! Republic %ct +o# >1&7 !i! not ,a-e the legal issues raise! in the plea!ings ,oot, aca!e,ic an! of no further ali!ity or effectE an! (;) Ren!ers 6u!g,ent7 (a) !is,issing the Plaintiff@s Co,plaintE (b) <is,issing the Co,plaint in )nter ention of )nter enor Pasay 9aw an! Conscience :nion, )nc#, (c)"n6oining <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation an! <efen!ant Pasay City to ha e all the plans an! specifications in the recla,ation appro e! by the <irector of Public 1or-s an! to ha e all the contracts an! subDcontracts for sai! recla,ation awar!e! by ,eans of, an! only after, public bi!!ingE an! (!) 9ifting the preli,inary )n6unction issue! by the Court on %pril ;?, 1'?;, as soon as <efen!ant Republic Real "state Corporation an! <efen!ant Pasay City shall ha e sub,itte! the correspon!ing plans an! specifications to the <irector of Public 1or-s, an! shall ha e obtaine! appro al thereof, an! as soon as the correspon!ing public bi!!ing for the awar! to the contractor an! subDcontractor that will un!erta-e the recla,ation pro6ect shall ha e been effecte!# +o pronounce,ent as to costs# (* *R<"R"<#$ D,ee Court of Appeals@ 1ecision dated +anuar$ 0/, %&&0G pp. '4/E 1issatisfied with the said <ud:ment, the Republic appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals. However, on +anuar$ %%, %&7(, before the appeal could be resolved, #residential 1ecree No. (4A issued, amendin: #residential 1ecree No. (, thus6 ("CT)*+ 1# (ection 7 of Presi!ential <ecree +o# 2, !ate! (epte,ber ;?, 1'7;, is hereby a,en!e! by the a!!ition of the following paragraphs7

The pro isions of any law to the contrary notwithstan!ing, the recla,ation of areas un!er water, whether foreshore or inlan!, shall be li,ite! to the +ational Bo ern,ent or any person authoriFe! by it un!er a proper contract# %ll recla,ations ,a!e in iolation of this pro ision shall be forfeite! to the (tate without nee! of 6u!icial action# Contracts for recla,ation still legally e.isting or whose ali!ity has been accepte! by the +ational Bo ern,ent shall be ta-en o er by the +ational Bo ern,ent on the basis of /uantu, ,eruit, for proper prosecution of the pro6ect in ol e! by a!,inistration#$ 8n November 0., %&7(, the Republic and the Construction 1evelopment Corporation of the #hilippines (C<CP$) si:ned a Contract2%(3 for the 9anila4Cavite Coastal Road #ro<ect (Phases ) an! ))) which contract included the reclamation and development of areas covered b$ the A:reement between #asa$ Cit$ and RREC. 5hen, there was issued #residential 1ecree No. %./5 which transferred to the #ublic Estate Authorit$ (P"%$) the ri:hts and obli:ations of the Republic of the #hilippines under the contract between the Republic and C1C#. Attempts to settle amicabl$ the dispute between representatives of the Republic, on the one hand, and those of #asa$ Cit$ and RREC, on the other, did not wor) out. 5he parties involved failed to hammer out a compromise. 8n +anuar$ 0/, %&&0, the Court of Appeals came out with a 1ecision 2%43 dismissin: the appeal of the Republic and holdin:, thus6 13"R"0*R", the !ecision appeale! fro, is hereby %00)R5"< with the following ,o!ifications7 1# The re/uire,ent by the trial court on public bi!!ing an! the sub,ission of RR"C@s plans an! specification to the <epart,ent of Public 1or-s an! 3ighways in or!er that RR"C ,ay continue the i,ple,entation of the recla,ation wor- is !elete! for being ,oot an! aca!e,icE ;# *r!ering the plaintiffDappellant to turn o er to Pasay City the ownership an! possession o er all acant spaces in the twentyDone hectare area alrea!y reclai,e! by Pasay City an! RR"C at the ti,e it too- o er the sa,e# %reas thereat o er which per,anent structures has (sic) been intro!uce! shall, inclu!ing the structures, re,ain in the possession of the present possessor, sub6ect to any negotiation between Pasay City an! the sai! present possessor, as regar!s the continue! possession an! ownership of the latter area# 2# (ustaining RR"C@s irre ocable option to purchase si.ty (?0G) percent of the TwentyD*ne (;1) hectares of lan! alrea!y reclai,e! by it, to be e.ercise! within one (1) year fro, the finality of this !ecision, at the sa,e ter,s an! con!ition e,bo!ie! in the Pasay CityDRR"C recla,ation contract, an! en6oining appellee Pasay City to respect RR"C@s option# (* *R<"R"<#$

8n ebruar$ %4, %&&0, #asa$ Cit$ and RREC presented a 9otion for Reconsideration of such 1ecision of the Court of Appeals, contendin:, amon: others, that RREC had actuall$ reclaimed ift$4 ive (>>) hectares, and not onl$ 5went$4one (;1) hectares, and the respondent Court of Appeals erred in not awardin: dama:es to them, movants. 8n April 0/, %&&0, the Court of Appeals acted favorabl$ on the said 9otion for Reconsideration, b$ amendin: the dispositive portion of its <ud:ment of +anuar$ 0/, %&&0, to read as follows6 13"R"0*R", the !ispositi e portion of our <ecision !ate! Aanuary ;&, 1''; is hereby %5"+<"< to rea! as follows7 1# The re/uire,ent by the trial court on public bi!!ing an! the sub,ission of the RR"C@s plans an! specification to the <epart,ent of Public 1or-s an! 3ighways in or!er that RR"C ,ay continue the i,ple,entation of the recla,ation wor- is !elete! for being ,oot an! aca!e,ic# ;# *r!ering plaintiffDappellant to turn o er to Pasay City the ownership an! possession of the abo e enu,erate! lots (1 to ')# 2# (ustaining RR"C@s irre ocable option to purchase si.ty (?0G) percent of the lan! referre! to in +o# ; of this !ispositi e portion, to be e.ercise! within one (1) year fro, the finality of this <ecision, at the sa,e ter,s an! con!ition e,bo!ie! in the Pasay CityDRR"C recla,ation contract, an! en6oining Pasay City to respect RR"C@s irre ocable option# (* *R<"R"<#$ rom the 1ecision and Amended 1ecision of the Court of Appeals aforementioned, the Republic of the #hilippines, as well as #asa$ Cit$ and RREC, have come to this Court to see) relief, albeit with different pra$ers. 8n ,eptember %., %&&7, the Court commissioned the former thirteenth 1ivision of Court of Appeals to hear and receive evidence on the controvers$. 5he correspondin: Commissioner@s Report, dated November 05, %&&7, was submitted and now forms part of the records. 8n 8ctober %%, %&&7, the Cultural Center of the #hilippines (CCP$) filed a #etition in !ntervention, theori"in: that it has a direct interest in the case bein: the owner of sub<ect nine (') lots titled in its (CCP) name, which the respondent Court of Appeals ordered to be turned over to #asa$ Cit$. 5he CC#, as such intervenor, was allowed to present its evidence, as it did, before the Court of Appeals, which evidence has been considered in the formulation of this disposition. !n -.R. No. %.(//0, the Republic of the #hilippines theori"es, b$ wa$ of assi:nment of errors, that6 I 5HE C8FR5 8 A##EAA, ERRE1 !N F#H8A1!N- 5HE HAA!1!5B 8 #A,AB C!5B 8R1!NANCE N8. %5/ 1A5E1 A#R!A 0%, %&5& AN1 5HE RECAA9A5!8N C8N5RAC5 EN5ERE1 !N58 BE5;EEN #A,AB C!5B AN1 RRECG

II 5HE C8FR5 8 A##EAA, ERRE1 !N !N1!N- 5HA5 RREC HA1 RECAA!9E1 55 HEC5ARE, AN1 !N 8R1ER!N- 5HE 5FRN48HER 58 #A,AB C!5B 8 5HE 8;NER,H!# AN1 #8,,E,,!8N 8 N!NE D&E A85, 5!5AE1 !N 5HE NA9E 8 CC#. !n -.R. No. %.507', the petitioners, #asa$ Cit$ and RREC, contend, that66 I 5HE C8FR5 8 A##EAA, ERRE1 !N N85 1ECAAR!N- #RE,!1EN5!AA 1ECREE N8. (4A FNC8N,5!5F5!8NAAG II 5HE C8FR5 8 A##EAA, ERRE1 !N N85 A;AR1!N- 1A9A-E, !N AH8R 8 #A,AB C!5B AN1 RREC. Aet us first tac)le the issues posed in -.R. No. %.(//0. 8n the first =uestion re:ardin: the validit$ of #asa$ Cit$ 8rdinance No. %5/ dated April 0%, %&5& and the A:reement dated April 04, %&5& between #asa$ Cit$ and RREC, we rule in the ne:ative. ,ection % of RA %/&&, reads6 ("CT)*+ 1# %uthority is hereby grante! to all ,unicipalities an! chartere! cities to un!erta-e an! carry out at their own e.pense the recla,ation by !re!ging, filling, or other ,eans, of any foreshore lan!s bor!ering the,, an! to establish, pro i!e, construct, ,aintain an! repair proper an! a!e/uate !oc-ing an! harbor facilities as such ,unicipalities an! chartere! cities ,ay !eter,ine in consultation with the (ecretary of 0inance an! the (ecretary of Public 1or-s an! Co,,unications#$ !t is the submission of the petitioner, Republic of the #hilippines, that there are no foreshore lands alon: the seaside of #asa$ Cit$2%53G that what #asa$ Cit$ has are submer:ed or offshore areas outside the commerce of man which could not be a proper sub<ect matter of the A:reement between #asa$ Cit$ and RREC in =uestion as the area affected is within the National #ar), )nown as 9anila Ba$ Beach Resort, established under #roclamation No. 4%, dated +ul$ 5, %&54, pursuant to Act No. (&%5, of which area it (Republic) has been in open, continuous and peaceful possession since time immemorial. #etitioner faults the respondent court for undul$ e*pandin: what ma$ be considered >foreshore land? throu:h the followin: dis=uisition6 The for,er (ecretary of Austice %le6o 5abanag, in response to a re/uest for an opinion fro, the then (ecretary of Public 1or-s an! Co,,unications as to whether the ter, 4foreshore areas@ as use! in (ection ) of the i,,e!iately afore/uote! law is that !efine! in 1ebster@s <ictionary an! the 9aw of 1aters so as to ,a-e any !re!ging or filling beyon! its prescribe! li,it illegal, opine!7 4%ccor!ing to the basic letter of the <irector of Public 1or-s, the law of 1aters spea-s of 4shore@ an! !efines it thus7 4that space ,o e,ent of the ti!e# )ts interior or terrestrial li,it in the line reache! by highest e/uinoctial ti!es#@

;ebster@s definition of foreshore reads as follows6 That part of the shore between high water an! lowDwater ,ar-s usually fi.e! at the line to which the or!inary ,eans ti!e flows7 also, by e.tension, the beach, the shore near the water@s e!ge#@ )f we were to be strictly literal the ter, foreshore or foreshore lan!s shoul! be confine! to but a portion of the shore, in itself a ery li,ite! area#@ (p# ?, )nter enorsDappellees@ brief)# Bearing in ,in! the (1ebster@s an! 9aw of 1aters) !efinitions of 4shore@ an! of foreshore lan!s, one is struc- with the apparent inconsistency between the areas thus !escribe! an! the purpose to which that area, when reclai,e! un!er the pro ision of Republic %ct +o# 1&'', shall be !e ote!# (ection ) (of sai! 9aw) authoriFes the construction thereat of @a!e/uate !oc-ing an! harbor facilities@# This purpose is repeate! in (ections 2 an! = of the %ct# %n! yet, it is well -nown fact that foreshore lan!s nor,ally e.ten! only fro, 10 to ;0 ,eters along the coast# +ot ery ,uch ,ore if at all# )n fact, certain parts in 5anila bor!ering on 5anila Bay, has no foreshore to spea- of since the sea washes the sea wall# )t !oes not see, logical, then, that Congress ha! in ,in!# 1ebster@s li,ite! concept of foreshore when it enacte! Republic %ct +o# 1&'', unless it inten!s that the whar es, piers, !oc-s, etc# shoul! be constructe! parallel to the shore, which is i,practical# (ince it is to be presu,e! that Congress coul! not ha e inten!e! to enact an ineffectual ,easure not one that woul! lea! to absur! conse/uences, it woul! see, that it use! 4foreshore@ in a sense wi!er in scope that that !efine! by 1ebster# ...@ To sai! opinion on the interpretation of the R#%# 1&'', plaintiffDappellant coul! not offer any refutation or contrary opinion# +either can we# )n fact, the abo e construction is consistent with the 4rule on conte.t@ in statutory construction which pro i!es that in construing a statute, the sa,e ,ust be construe! as a whole# The particular wor!s, clauses an! phrases shoul! not be stu!ie! as !etache! an! isolate! e.pressions, but the whole an! e ery part of the statute ,ust be consi!ere! in fi.ing the ,eaning of any of its parts in or!er to pro!uce a har,onious whole (see %raneta s# Concepcion, '' Phil# 70')# There are two reasons for this# 0irstly, the force an! significance of particular e.pressions will largely !epen! upon the connection in which they are foun! an! their relation to the general sub6ectD,atter of the law# The legislature ,ust be un!erstoo! to ha e e.presse! its whole ,in! on the special ob6ect to which the legislati e act is !irecte! but the ehicle for the e.pressions of that ,eaning is the statute, consi!ere! as one entire an! continuous act, an! not as an agglo,eration of unrelate! clauses # "ach clause or pro ision will be illu,inate! by those which are cognate to it an! by the general tenor of the whole statute an! thus obscurities an! a,biguities ,ay often be cleare! up by the ,ost !irect an! natural ,eans# (econ!ly, effect ,ust be gi en, if it is possible, to e ery wor! an! clause of the statute, so that nothing shall be left !e oi! of ,eaning or !estitute of force# To this en!,

each pro ision of the statute shoul! be rea! in the light of the whole# 0or the general ,eaning of the legislature, as gathere! fro, the entire act, ,ay often pre ail o er the construction which woul! appear to be the ,ost natural an! ob ious on the face of a particular clause# )t is by this ,eans that contra!iction an! repugnance between the !ifferent parts of the statute ,ay be a oi!e!#@ D,ee Blac), !nterpretation of Aaws, 0nd Ed., pp. (%74(%&E. Resorting to e.trinsic ai!s, the 4".planatory +ote@ to 3ouse Bill +o# 2?20, which was subse/uently enacte! as Republic %ct +o# 1&'', rea!s7 4)n or!er to !e elop an! e.pan! the 5ariti,e Co,,erce of the Philippines, it is necessary that harbor facilities be correspon!ingly i,pro e!, an!, where necessary, e.pan!e! an! !e elope!# The national go ern,ent is not in a financial position to han!le all this wor-# *n the other han!, with a greater autono,y, ,any chartere! cities an! pro inces are financially able to ha e cre!it position which will allow the, to un!erta-e these pro6ects# (o,e cities, such as the City of Bacolo! un!er R#%# 1?1, has been authoriFe! to reclai, foreshore lan!s bor!ering it# *ther cities an! pro inces ha e continuously been re/uesting for authority to reclai, foreshore lan!s on the basis of the Bacolo! City pattern, an! to un!erta-e wor- to establish, construct on the reclai,e! area an! ,aintain such port facilities as ,ay be necessary# )n or!er not to un!uly !elay the un!erta-ing of these pro6ects, an! inor!er to ob iate the passage of in!i i!ual pieces of legislation for e ery chartere! city an! pro ince, it is hereby reco,,en!e! that the acco,panying bill be appro e!# )t co ers %uthority for %ll chartere! cities an! pro inces to un!erta-e this wor-# . . . Dunderscorin: suppliedE :tiliFing the abo e e.planatory note in interpreting an! construing the pro isions of R#%# 1&'', then (ecretary of Austice 5abanag opine!7 )t is clear that the 4Bacolo! City pattern@ was the basis of the enact,ent of the afore,entione! bill of general application# This soDcalle! 4Bacolo! City pattern@ appears to be co,pose! of 2 parts, na,ely7 Republic %ct +o# 1?1, which grants authority to Bacolo! City to un!erta-e or carry out ### the recla,ation ### of any HsicI carry out the recla,ation pro6ect confor,ably with Republic %ct +o# 1?1E an! Republic %ct +o# 112; authoriFing Bacolo! City to contract in!ebte!ness or to issue bon!s in the a,ount not e.cee!ing si. ,illion pesos to finance the recla,ation of lan! in sai! city# Republic %ct +o# 1?1 !i! not in itself specify the precise space therein referre! to as 4foreshore@ lan!s, but it pro i!e! that !oc-ing an! harbor facilities shoul! be erecte! on the reclai,e! portions thereof, while not conclusi e woul! in!icate that Congress use! the wor! 4foreshore@ in its broa!est sense# (ignificantly, the plan of recla,ation of foreshore !rawn up by the Bureau of Public 1or-s ,aps out an area of appro.i,ately 1,?00,000 s/uare ,eters, the boun!aries of which clearly e.ten! way beyon! 1ebster@s li,ite! concept of the ter, 4foreshore@# %s a

conte,poraneous construction by that branch of the Bo ern,ent e,powere! to o ersee at least, the con!uct of the wor-, such an interpretation !eser es great weight# 0inally, Congress in enacting Republic %ct +o# 112; (supple,ent to R% 1?1), 4tacitly confir,e! an! appro e! the Bureau@s interpretation of the ter, 4foreshore@ when instea! of ta-ing the occasion to correct the Bureau of o er e.ten!ing its plan, it authoriFe! the city of Bacolo! to raise the full esti,ate! cost of reclai,ing the total area co ere! by the plan# The e.planatory note to 3ouse Bill +o# 1;=' which beca,e Republic %ct +o# 112; states a,ong the things7 4The Bureau of Public 1or-s alrea!y prepare! a plan for the recla,ation of about 1,?00,000 s/uare ,eters of lan! at an esti,ate! costs of aboutP?,000,000#00# The pro6ect is selfDsupporting because the procee!s fro, the sales or leases of lan!s so reclai,e! will be ,ore than sufficient to co er the cost of the pro6ect#@ Conse/uently, when Congress passe! Republic %ct +o# 1&'' in or!er to facilitate the recla,ation by local go ern,ents of foreshore lan!s on the basis of the Bacolo! City pattern an! in or!er to ob iate the passage of in!i i!ual pieces of legislation for e ery chartere! city an! pro inces re/uesting authority to un!erta-e such pro6ects, the law,a-ing bo!y coul! not ha e ha! in ,in! the li,ite! area !escribe! by 1ebster as 4foreshore@ lan!s# . . .@# )f it was really the intention of Congress to li,it the area to the strict literal ,eaning of foreshore$ lan!s which ,ay be reclai,e! by chartere! cities an! ,unicipalities, Congress woul! ha e e.clu!e! the cities of 5anila, )loilo, Cebu, Ja,boanga an! <a ao fro, the operation of R% 1&'' as suggeste! by (enator Cuenco !uring the !eliberation of the bill consi!ering that these cities !o not ha e 4foreshore@ lan!s in the strict ,eaning of the ter,# Cet, Congress !i! not appro e the propose! a,en!,ent of (enator Cuenco, i,plying therefore, that Congress inten!e! not to li,it the area that ,ay be reclai,e! to the strict !efinition of 4foreshore@ lan!s# The opinion of the then (ecretary of Austice 5abanag, who was at that ti,e the chief law officer an! legal a! iser of the go ern,ent an! whose office is re/uire! by law to issue opinions for the gui!ance of the arious !epart,ents of the go ern,ent, there being then no 6u!icial interpretation to the contrary, is entitle! to respect Dsee Ben:"on vs. ,ecretar$ of +ustice and !nsular Auditor, '/ #hil. &%0E. 1e are not un,in!ful of the (upre,e Court Resolution !ate! 0ebruary 2, 1'?> in Ponce s# Bo,eF (9D;1&70) an! Ponce s# City of Cebu (9D;;?? , by a unani,ous ote of si. (?) 6ustices (the other fi e (>) ,e,bers !ee,e! it unnecessary to e.press their iew because in their opinion the /uestions raise! were not properly brought before the court), which in essence applie! the strict !ictionary ,eaning of foreshore lan!s$ as use! in R% 1&'' in the case of the city of Cebu# But this was pro,ulgate! long after the then (ecretary of Austice 5abanag ren!ere! the abo e opinion on +o e,ber 1?, 1'>' an! long after RR"C has starte! the sub6ect recla,ation pro6ect# 0urther,ore, as hel! by the lower court, Congress, after the (upre,e Court issue! the afore,entione! Resolution, enacte! R% >1&7# )n (ec# 2 (,) of sai! law, Congress appropriate! ,oney 4for the construction of the seawall an! li,ite! access highway fro,

the (outh boun!ary of the city of 5anila to Ca ite City, to the (outh, an! fro, the +orth boun!ary of the city of 5anila to the ,unicipality of 5ari eles, pro ince of Bataan, to the +orth (inclu!ing the recla,ation of foreshore an! sub,erge! areas ### pro i!e! ### that ### e.isting pro6ects an!8or contracts of city or ,unicipal go ern,ents for the recla,ation of foreshore an! sub,erge! lan!s shall be respecte!###@ This is a clear ,anifestation that Congress in enacting R% 1&'', !i! not inten! to li,it the interpretation of the ter, foreshore lan!$ to its !ictionary ,eaning# )t is presu,e! that the legislature was ac/uainte! with an! ha! in ,in! the 6u!icial construction gi en to a for,er statute on the sub6ect, an! that the statute on the sub6ect, an! that the statute was enacte! ha ing in ,in! the 6u!icial construction that the prior enact,ent ha! recei e! , or in the light of such e.isting 6u!icial !ecisions as ha e !irect bearing upon it (see >0 %,# Aur#, (ec# 2;1, pp# 21;D212)# But notwithstan!ing sai! interpretation by the (upre,e Court of R% 1&'' in the Ponce cases, Congress enacte! a law co ering the sa,e areas pre iously e,brace! in a R% 1&'' (as ,entione! earlier, cities without foreshore lan!s which were sought to be e.clu!e! fro, the operation of R% 1&'' were not e.clu!e!), pro i!ing that respect be gi en the recla,ation of not only foreshore lan!s but also of sub,erge! lan!s signifying its nonDconfor,ity to the 6u!icial construction gi en to R% 1&''# )f Congress was in accor! with the interpretation an! construction ,a!e by the (upre,e Court on R% 1&'', it woul! ha e ,entione! recla,ation of foreshore lan!s$ only in R% >1&7, but Congress inclu!e! sub,erge! lan!s$ in or!er to clarify the intention on the grant of authority to cities an! ,unicipalities in the recla,ation of lan!s bor!ering the, as pro i!e! in R% 1&''# )t is, therefore, our opinion that it is actually the intention of Congress in R% 1&'' not to li,it the authority grante! to cities an! ,unicipalities to reclai, foreshore lan!s in its strict !ictionary ,eaning but rather in its wi!er scope as to inclu!e sub,erge! lan!s#$ 5he #etition is impressed with merit. 5o be:in with, erroneous and unsustainable is the opinion of respondent court that under RA %/&&, the term >foreshore lands? includes submer:ed areas. As can be :leaned from its dis=uisition and rationali"ation afore=uoted, the respondent court undul$ stretched and broadened the meanin: of >foreshore lands?, be$ond the intentment of the law, and a:ainst the reco:ni"ed le:al connotation of >foreshore lands?. ;ell entrenched, to the point of bein: elementar$, is the rule that when the law spea)s in clear and cate:orical lan:ua:e, there is no reason for interpretation or construction, but onl$ for application.2%'3 ,o also, resort to e*trinsic aids, li)e the records of the constitutional convention, is unwarranted, the lan:ua:e of the law bein: plain and unambi:uous. 2%73 5hen, too, opinions of the ,ecretar$ of +ustice are unavailin: to supplant or rectif$ an$ mista)e or omission in the law. 2%/3 5o repeat, the term >foreshore lands? refers to6 The strip of lan! that lies between the high an! low water ,ar-s an! that is alternately wet an! !ry accor!ing to the flow of the ti!e#$ D;ords and #hrases, > oreshore?E % strip of lan! ,argining a bo!y of water (as a la-e or strea,)E the part of a seashore between the lowDwater line usually at the seawar! ,argin of a lowDti!e terrace an! the upper li,it of wa e wash at high ti!e usually ,ar-e! by a beach scarp or ber,#$ D;ebster@s 5hird New !nternational 1ictionar$E

5he dut$ of the court is to interpret the enablin: Act, RA %/&&. !n so doin:, we cannot broaden its meanin:, much less widen the covera:e thereof. !f the intention of Con:ress were to include submer:ed areas, it should have provided e*pressl$. 5hat Con:ress did not so provide could onl$ si:nif$ the e*clusion of submer:ed areas from the term >foreshore lands?. Neither is there an$ valid :round to disre:ard the Resolution of this Court dated ebruar$ (, %&'5 in Ponce # Bo,eF (9D;1&70) and Ponce # City of Cebu (9D;;??') despite the enactment of Republic Act No. 5%/7 (R% >1&7$E, the relevant portion of which, reads6 (ec# 2# 5iscellaneous Pro6ects * * * ,# 0or the construction of seawall an! li,ite! access highway fro, the south boun!ary of the City of 5anila to Ca ite City, to the south, an! fro, the north boun!ary of the City of 5anila to the ,unicipality of 5ari eles, pro ince of Bataan, to the north, inclu!ing the recla,ation of the foreshore an! sub,erge! areas7 Pro i!e!, That priority in the construction of such seawalls, highway an! atten!ant recla,ation wor-s shall be gi en to any corporation an!8or corporations that ,ay offer to un!erta-e at its own e.pense such pro6ects, in which case the Presi!ent of the Philippines ,ay, after co,petiti e bi!!ing, awar! contracts for the construction of such pro6ects, with the winning bi!!er shoul!ering all costs thereof, the sa,e to be pai! in ter,s of percentage fee of the contractor which shall not e.cee! fifty percent of the area reclai,e! by the contractor an! shall represent full co,pensation for the purpose, the pro isions of the Public 9an! 9aw concerning !isposition of reclai,e! an! foreshore lan!s to the contrary notwithstan!ing7 Pro i!e!, finally, that the foregoing pro isions an! those of other laws, e.ecuti e or!ers, rules an! regulations to the contrary notwithstan!ing, e.isting rights, pro6ects an!8or contracts of city or ,unicipal go ern,ents for the recla,ation of foreshore an! sub,erge! lan!s shall be respecte!# . . .#$ 5here is nothin: in the fore:oin: provision of RA 5%/7 which can be interpreted to broaden the scope of >foreshore lands.? 5he said law is not amendator$ to RA %/&&. !t is an Appropriations Act, entitled I ?AN AC5 A##R8#R!A5!N- FN1, 8R #FBA!C ;8RJ,, ,BNCHR8N!C!N- 5HE ,A9E ;!5H #REH!8F, #FBA!C ;8RJ, A##R8#R!A5!8N,.? All thin:s viewed in proper perspective, we reiterate what was said in Ponce # Bo,eF (9D ;1&70) and Ponce # City of Cebu (9D;;??') that the term >foreshore? refers to >that part of the land ad<acent to the sea which is alternatel$ covered and left dr$ b$ the ordinar$ flow of the tides.? As opined b$ this Court in said cases6 13"R"%(, si. (?) ,e,bers of the Court (Austices Bautista %ngelo, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera, <iFon an! Aose P# BengFon) opine that sai! city or!inance an! contracts are ultra ires an! hence, null an! oi!, insofar as the re,aining ?0G of the area afore,entione!, because the ter, 4foreshore lan!s@ as use! in Republic %ct +o# 1&'' shoul! be un!erstoo! in the sense attache! thereto by co,,on parlanceE$ Dunderscorin: oursE 5he aforesaid rulin: was applied b$ then ,ecretar$ of +ustice Claudio 5eehan)ee, in his opinion dated 1ecember 00, %&'', in a case with analo:ous facts as the present one, to wit6

<ece,ber ;;, 1'?? The (ecretary of %griculture an! +atural Resources <ili,an, KueFon City (ir7 * * * )# 0acts D 1# *n Aanuary 1', 1'?1, pursuant to the pro isions of Republic %ct +o# 1&'', the 5unicipality of +a otas enacte! *r!inance +o# 1 authoriFing the 5unicipal 5ayor to enter into a recla,ation contract with 5r# Chuanico# ;# *n 5arch 1>, 1'?1, a recla,ation contract was conclu!e! between the 5unicipality of +a otas, represente! by the 5unicipal 5ayor, an! 5r# Chuanico in accor!ance with the abo e or!inance# Thereun!er, 5r# Chuanico shall be the attorneyDinDfact of the 5unicipality in prosecuting the recla,ation pro6ect an! shall a! ance the ,oney nee!e! thereforE that the actual e.penses incurre! shall be !ee,e! a loan to the 5unicipalityE that 5r# Chuanico shall ha e the irre ocable option to buy 70G of the reclai,e! area at P7#00 per s/uare ,eterE that he shall ha e the full an! irre ocable powers to !o any an! all things necessary an! proper in an! about the pre,ises,$ inclu!ing the power to hire necessary personnel for the prosecution of the wor-, purchase ,aterials an! supplies, an! purchase or lease construction ,achineries an! e/uip,ent, but any an! all contracts to be conclu!e! by hi, in behalf of the 5unicipality shall be sub,itte! to public bi!!ing# * * * 2# *n 5arch 1?, 1'?1, the 5unicipal Council of +a otas passe! Resolution +o# ;; appro ing an! ratifying the contract# * * * )))# Co,,ents D 1# The abo e recla,ation contract was conclu!e! on the basis of +a otas *r!inance +o# 1 which, in turn, ha! been enacte! a owe!ly pursuant to Republic %ct +o# 1&''# This being so, the contract, in or!er to be ali!, ,ust confor, to the pro isions of the sai! law# By authoriFing local go ern,ents to e.ecute by a!,inistration any recla,ation wor-,$ (Republic %ct +o# 1&'' i,plie!ly forbi!s the e.ecution of sai! pro6ect by contract# Thus, in the case of Ponce et al# s# Bo,eF (0ebruary 2, 1'??), fi e 6ustices of the (upre,e Court ote! to annul the contract between Cebu <e elop,ent Corporation an! Cebu City for the recla,ation of foreshore lan!s because the pro isions of sai! ### contract are not ### in accor!ance with the pro isions of Republic %ct +o# 1&'',$ as against one Austice who

opine! that the contract substantially co,plie! with the pro isions of the sai! law# (0i e Austices e.presse! no opinion on this point#) )nas,uch as the +a otas recla,ation contract is substantially si,ilar to the Cebu recla,ation contract, it is belie e! that the for,er is li-ewise fatally !efecti e# ;# The +a otas recla,ation pro6ect en isages the construction of a channel along the 5anila Bay periphery of that town an! the recla,ation of appro.i,ately ?>0 hectares of lan! fro, sai! channel to a seawar! !istance of one -ilo,eter# )n the basic letter it is state! that practically, all the ?>0 hectares of lan!s propose! to be reclai,e! un!er the agree,ent$ !o not constitute foreshore lan!s an! that the greater portion of the area # # # is in fact na igable an! presently being use! as a fishing harbor by !eepDsea fishing operators as well as a fishing groun! of sustenance fisher,an# %ssu,ing the correctness of these a er,ents, the +a otas recla,ation contract e i!ently transcen!s the authority grante! un!er Republic %ct +o# 1&'', which e,powers the local go ern,ents to reclai, nothing ,ore than foreshore lan!s,$ i#e#, that part of the lan! a!6acent to the sea which is alternately co ere! an! left !ry by the or!inary flow of the ti!es#$ (;? C#A# &'0#) )t was for this reason that in the cite! case Ponce case, the (upre,e Court, by a ote of ?D0 with fi e Austices abstaining, !eclare! ultra ires an! oi! the contractual stipulation for the recla,ation of sub,erge! lan!s off Cebu City, an! per,anently en6oine! its e.ecution un!er Republic %ct +o# 1&''# * * * )n accor!ance with the foregoing, ) ha e the honor to sub,it the iew that the +a otas recla,ation contract is not bin!ing an! shoul! be !isregar!e! for nonDco,pliance with law# Lery truly yours, ((B<) T""3%+M"" (ecretary of Austice$ 5he said opinion of +ustice ,ecretar$ 5eehan)ee who became Associate +ustice, and later Chief +ustice, of this Court, did, in our considered view, supersede the earlier opinion of former +ustice ,ecretar$ Ale<o 9abana:, aforestated, as the cases, in connection with which sub<ect opinions were sou:ht, were with similar facts. 5he said 5eehan)ee opinion accords with RA %/&&. !t bears stressin: that the sub<ect matter of #asa$ Cit$ 8rdinance No. %0%, as amended b$ 8rdinance No. %5/, and the A:reement under attac), have been found to be outside the intendment and scope of RA %/&&, and therefore ultra ires and null and void. ;hat is worse, the same A:reement was vitiated b$ the :larin: absence of a public biddin:. 8bviousl$, there is a complete dearth of evidence to prove that RREC had reall$ reclaimed 55 hectares. 5he letter of 9inister Balta"ar A=uino relied upon b$ RREC is no proof at all that RREC had reclaimed 55 hectares. ,aid letter was <ust referrin: to a tentative schedule of wor) to be done b$ RREC, even as it re=uired RREC to submit the pertinent papers to show its supposed accomplishment, C9%:<)*

to secure approval b$ the 9inistr$ of #ublic ;or)s and Hi:hwa$s to the reclamation plan, and to submit to a public biddin: all contracts and sub4contracts for sub<ect reclamation pro<ect but RREC never complied with such re=uirements and conditions sine /ua non# No contracts or sub4contracts or a:reements, plans, desi:ns, andKor specifications of the reclamation pro<ect were presented to reflect an$ accomplishment. Not even an$ statement or itemi"ation of wor)s accomplished b$ contractors or subcontractors or vouchers and other relevant papers were introduced to describe the e*tent of RREC@s accomplishment. Neither was the re=uisite certification from the Cit$ En:ineer concerned that >portions of the reclamation pro<ect not less than 5. hectares in area shall have been accomplished or completed? obtained and presented b$ RREC. As a matter of fact, no witness ever testified on an$ reclamation wor) done b$ RREC, and e*tent thereof, as of April 0', %&'0. Not a sin:le contractor, sub4contractor, en:ineer, surve$or, or an$ other witness involved in the alle:ed reclamation wor) of RREC testified on the 55 hectares supposedl$ reclaimed b$ RREC. ;hat wor) was done, who did the wor), where was it commenced, and when was it completed, was never brou:ht to li:ht b$ an$ witness before the court. Certainl$, onus proban!i was on RREC and #asa$ Cit$ to show and point out the as $et unidentified 55 hectares the$ alle:edl$ reclaimed. But this burden of proof RREC and #asa$ Cit$ miserabl$ failed to dischar:e. ,o also, in the decision of the #asa$ Court of irst !nstance dismissin: the complaint of plaintiff4 appellant, now petitioner Republic of the #hilippines, the liftin: of the writ of #reliminar$ !n<unction issued on April 0', %&'0 would become effective onl$ >as soon as 1efendant Republic Real Estate Corporation and 1efendant #asa$ Cit$ shall have submitted the correspondin: plans and specifications to the 1irector of #ublic ;or)s, and shall have obtained approval thereof, and as soon as correspondin: public biddin: for the award to the contractor and sub4contractor that will underta)e the reclamation pro<ect shall have been effected.? (Rollo, pp# 1;7D1;', B#R# +o# 102&&;) rom the records on hand, it is abundantl$ clear that RREC and #asa$ Cit$ never complied with such prere=uisites for the liftin: of the writ of #reliminar$ !n<unction. Conse=uentl$, RREC had no authorit$ to resume its reclamation wor) which was stopped b$ said writ of preliminar$ in<unction issued on April 0', %&'0. rom the Contract for 1red:in: ;or), dated November 0', %&'., mar)ed E*hibit >0%4A? for RREC before the lower court, and E*hibit >EE? for CC# before the Court of Appeals, it can be deduced that onl$ on November 0', %&'. did RREC contract out the dred:in: wor) to C and A Construction Compan$, !nc., for the reclamation of the 55 hectares initiall$ pro:rammed to be reclaimed b$ it. But, as stated b$ RREC itself in the position paper filed with this Court on +ul$ %5, %&&7, with reference to C1C#@s reclamation wor), mobili"ation of the reclamation team would ta)e one $ear before a reclamation wor) could actuall$ be:in. 5herefore, the reclamation wor) underta)en b$ RREC could not have started before November 0', %&'%. Considerin: that on April 0', %&'0 RREC was en<oined from proceedin: an$ further with its reclamation wor), it had barel$ five (>) months, from November, %&'% to April, %&'0, to wor) on sub<ect reclamation pro<ect. !t was thus ph$sicall$ impossible for RREC to reclaim 55 hectares, with the stipulated specifications and elevation, in such a brief span of time. !n the report of RREC (".hibit <<$ for CCP), it was conceded that due to the writ of preliminar$ in<unction issued on April 0', %&'0, C and A Construction Co., !nc. had suspended its dred:in: operation since 9a$, %&'0.

5he >:raphical report? on the #asa$ Reclamation pro<ect, as of April (., %&'0, attached to the #ro:ress Report mar)ed E*hibit >11?, is a schematic representation of the wor) accomplishment referred to in such #ro:ress Report, indicatin: the various elevations of the land surface it embraced, ran:in: from .... meters to the hi:hest elevation of 0.5 meters above 9AA;. ,uch portra$al of wor) accomplished is crucial in our determination of whether or not RREC had actuall$ >reclaimed? an$ land as under its Contract for 1red:in: ;or) with C and A Construction Compan$ (".hibit ""$), the re=uired final elevation for a completel$ reclaimed land was (.5 meters above 9AA;, as e*plicitl$ provided in said Contract for 1red:in: ;or). ,o, the irresistible conclusion is 4 when the wor) on sub<ect RREC4#asa$ Cit$ reclamation pro<ect stopped in April, %&'0 in compliance with the writ of preliminar$ in<unction issued b$ the trial court of ori:in, no portion of the reclamation pro<ect wor)ed on b$ RREC had reached the stipulated elevation of (.5 meters above 9AA;. 5he entire area it wor)ed on was onl$ at sea level or .... meter above 9AA;. !n short, RREC had not $et reclaimed an$ area when the writ of preliminar$ in<unction issued in April %&'0. 8n this point, the testimonies of Architect Ruben 9. #rotacio, Architect and 9ana:in: partner of Aeandro H. Aocsin and partners, Architect and Cit$ #lanner 9anuel 5. 9aLo"a, +r. of #lannin: Resources and 8peration ,$stem, !nc., Rose 1. Cru", E*ecutive Assistant, 8ffice of the #resident, from %&'' to %&7., and 1r. Aucrecia Jasila:, National Artist and member of CC# Advisor$ Committee, come to the fore. 5hese credible, impartial and )nowled:eable witnesses recounted on the witness stand that when the construction of the 9ain Buildin: of the Cultural Center of the #hilippines (CCP) be:an in %&'', the onl$ surface land available was the site for the said buildin: (T(+, (ept# ;', 1''7, pages &, 1= an! >0), what could be seen in front of and behind it was all water (T(+, (ept# ;', 1''7, pages 1;7D1;&)# ;hen the CC# 9ain Buildin: was bein: constructed, from %&'' to %&'&, the land above sea level thereat was onl$ where the CC# 9ain Buildin: was erected and the rest of the surroundin:s were all under water, particularl$ the bac) portion frontin: the ba$. (T(+, (ept# 12, 1''7, pp# 1&1, 1&;, 1&>, 1&?, 1&&)# 1r. Aucrecia R. Jasila: stressed that on April %', %&'', durin: the :round brea)in: for the CC# 9ain Buildin:, it was water all around (T(+, (ept# 20, 1''7, pp# 2;0, 2;=, 2;>)# 5here was indeed no le:al and factual basis for the Court of Appeals to order and declare that >the re=uirement b$ the trial court on public biddin: and the submission of RREC@s plans and specification to the 1epartment of #ublic ;or)s and Hi:hwa$s in order that RREC ma$ continue the implementation of the reclamation wor) is deleted for bein: moot and academic.? ,aid re=uirement has never become moot and academic. !t has remained indispensable, as ever, and non4compliance therewith restrained RREC from lawfull$ resumin: the reclamation wor) under controvers$, notwithstandin: the rendition below of the decision in its favor. Heril$, contrar$ to what the Court of Appeals found, RREC had not reclaimed an$ area with the prescribed elevation of (.5 meters above 9AA;, so much so that in %&7/, it (RR"C) opted to file with the former 9inistr$ of #ublic Hi:hwa$s, a claim for compensation of #(.,(&',/7/.0., for reclamation wor) alle:edl$ done before the C1C# started wor)in: on the reclamation of the CC# :rounds. 8n ,eptember 7, %&7&, RREC as)ed the ,olicitor -eneral to settle its sub<ect claim for compensation at the same amount of #(.,(&',/7/.0.. But on +une %., %&/%, :uided b$ the cost data, wor) volume accomplished and other relevant information :athered b$ the former 9inistr$ of #ublic Hi:hwa$s, the ,olicitor -eneral informed RREC that the value of what it had accomplished, based on %&'0 price levels, was onl$ #/,(44,74%.0&, and the e*penses for mobili"ation of e=uipment amounted to #0,5/%,((..... 5he aforesaid evaluation made b$ the :overnment, throu:h the then 9inister of

#ublic Hi:hwa$s, is factual and realistic, so much so that on +une 05, %&/%, RREC, in its repl$ letter to the ,olicitor -eneral, stated6 1e regret that we are not agreeable to the a,ount of P10,';?,071#;', base! on 1'?; cost !ata, etc#, as co,pensation base! on /uantu, ,eruit# The least we woul! consi!er is the a,ount of P10#';?,071#;' plus interest at the rate of ?G per annu, fro, 1'?; to the ti,e of pay,ent# 1e feel that ?G is ery ,uch less than the accepte! rate of inflation that has super ene! since 1'?; to the present, an! e en less than the present legal rate of 1;G per annu,#$2%&3 Fndoubtedl$, what RREC claimed for was pa$ment for what it had done, and for the dred:e fill of %,55/,(&5 cubic meters it used, on sub<ect reclamation pro<ect. Respondent Court li)ewise erred in orderin: the turn4over to #asa$ Cit$ of the followin: titled lots, to wit6 A85 N8. 40 the of -,!, ( %0 BF!A1!N-loria 9aris AREA 8C5K5C5 &,5%' s=.m. Restaurant 7',0&& s=.m. 8C5 %5& in name

0&

open space, leased b$ El ,haddai

%.',.'7 s=.m.

5C5 75'/% in the name of CC#

;e discern no factual basis nor an$ le:al <ustification therefor. !n the first place, in their answer to the Complaint and Amended Complaint below, RREC and #asa$ Cit$ never pra$ed for the transfer to #asa$ Cit$ of sub<ect lots, title to which had lon: become indefeasible in favor of the ri:htful title holders, CC# and -,!,, respectivel$. 5he annotation of a notice of lis pen!ens on the certificates of title coverin: the said lots is of no moment. !t did not vest in #asa$ Cit$ and RREC an$ real ri:ht superior to the absolute ownership thereover of CC# and -,!,. Besides, the nature of the action did not reall$ warrant the issuance of a notice of lis pen!ens. ,ection %4 of Rule %(, Revised Rules of Civil #rocedure, reads6 (ec# 1=# +otice of lis pen!ens# D )n an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff an! the !efen!ant, when affir,ati e relief is clai,e! in his answer, ,ay recor! in the office of the registry of !ee!s of the pro ince in which the property is situate! a notice of the pen!ency of the action# (ai! notice shall contain the na,es of the parties an! the ob6ect of the action or !efense, an! a !escription of the property in that pro ince affecte! thereby# *nly fro, the ti,e of filing such notice for recor! shall a purchaser, or encu,brancer of the property affecte! thereby, be !ee,e! to ha e constructi e notice of the pen!ency of the action, an! only of its pen!ency against the parties !esignate! by their real na,es# The notice of lis pen!ens herein abo e ,entione! ,ay be cancelle! only upon or!er of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of ,olesting the a! erse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who cause! it to be recor!e!#$ Fnder the aforecited provision of law in point, a notice of lis pen!ens is necessar$ when the action is for recover$ of possession or ownership of a parcel of land. !n the present liti:ation, RREC and #asa$ Cit$, as defendants in the main case, did not counterclaim for the turnover to #asa$ Cit$ of the titled lots aforementioned. ;hat is more, a torrens title cannot be collaterall$ attac)ed. 5he issue of validit$ of a torrens title, whether fraudulentl$ issued or not, ma$ be posed onl$ in an action brou:ht to impu:n or annul it. (3alili s# +ational 9abor Relations Co,,ission, 057 ,CRA %74G Ci,afranca s# )nter,e!iate %ppellate Court, %47 ,CRA '%%.E Fnmista)able, and cannot be i:nored, is the :ermane provision of ,ection 4/ of #.1. %50&, that a certificate of title can never be the sub<ect of a collateral attac). !t cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled e*cept in a direct proceedin: instituted in accordance with law. Althou:h #asa$ Cit$ and RREC did not succeed in their underta)in: to reclaim an$ area within sub<ect reclamation pro<ect, it appearin: that somethin: compensable was accomplished b$ them, followin: the applicable provision of law and hear)enin: to the dictates of e=uit$, that no one, not even the :overnment, shall un<ustl$ enrich oneselfKitself at the e*pense of another 20.3, we believeG and so hold, that #asa$ Cit$ and RREC should be paid for the said actual wor) done and dred:e4fill poured

Asean -arden

8C5 %.05% in the name of CC# 5C5 %/'07 in the name of CC#

ol) Arts 5heater %.75.( s=.m. and #!CC par)in: space landscaped with %(0,&04 s=.m. sculpture of Asean Artists4site of Boom na Boom open space, bac) of #hilcite #ar)in: space for ,tar Cit$, CC#, #hilcite open space, occupied b$ ,tar Cit$ open space, beside #!CC

00

5C5 75'7' in the name of CC#

0( 04

(4,(4' s=.m. %.,(50 s=.m.

5C5 75'77 in the name of CC# 5C5 75'7/ in the name of CC# 5C5 75'7& in the name of CC# 5C5 75'/4 in the name of CC#

05

%%,(0( s=.m.

0/

07,'/& s=.m.

in, worth #%.,&0',.7%.0&, as verified b$ the former 9inistr$ of #ublic Hi:hwa$s, and as claimed b$ RREC itself in its afore=uoted letter dated +une 05, %&/%. !t is ferventl$ hoped that lon: after the end of our so<ourn in this valle$ of tears, the court, for its herein historic disposition, will be e*alted b$ the future :enerations of ilipinos, for the preservation of the national patrimon$ and promotion of our cultural herita:e. As writer Channin: ri:htl$ puts it6 1hate er e.pan!s the affections, or enlarges the sphere of our sy,pathies D 1hate er ,a-es us feel our relation to the uni erse an! all that it inherits in ti,e an! in eternity,an! to the great an! beneficent cause of all, ,ust un/uestionably refine our nature, an! ele ate us in the scale of being#$ , EREFORE+ !n -.R. No. %.(//0, the #etition is -RAN5E1G the 1ecision, dated +anuar$ 0/, %&&0, and Amended 1ecision, dated April 0/, %&&0, of the Court of Appeals, are both ,E5 A,!1EG and #asa$ Cit$ 8rdinance No. %0%, dated 9a$ ', %&5/, and 8rdinance No. %5/, dated April 0%, %&5&, as well as the Reclamation A:reements entered into b$ #asa$ Cit$ and Republic Real Estate Corporation (RR"C) as authori"ed b$ said cit$ ordinances, are declared NFAA and H8!1 for bein: ultra ires, and contrar$ to Rep. Act %/&&. 5he writ of preliminar$ in<unction issued on April 0', %&'0 b$ the trial court a /uo in Civil Case No. 000&4# is made permanent, and the notice of lis pen!ensissued b$ the Court of Appeals in CA -.R. CH No. 5%(4& ordered CANCEAAE1. 5he Re:ister of 1eeds of #asa$ Cit$ is directed to ta)e note of and annotate on the certificates of title involved, the cancellation of sub<ect notice of lis pen!ens. 5he petitioner, Republic of the #hilippines, is hereb$ ordered to pa$ #asa$ Cit$ and Republic Real Estate Corporation the sum of 5EN 9!AA!8N N!NE HFN1RE1 5;EN5B4,!M 5H8F,AN1 ,EHEN5B48NE AN1 5;EN5B4N!NE CEN5AH8, (P10,';?,071#;') #E,8,, plus interest thereon of si* (?G)percent per annum from 9a$ %, %&'0 until full pa$ment, which amount shall be divided b$ #asa$ Cit$ and RREC, share and share ali)e. !n -.R. No. %.507', the #etition is hereb$ 1EN!E1 for lac) of merit. No pronouncement as to costs. !O OR#ERE#. <a i!e Ar#, Bellosillo, 5elo, Litug, 5en!oFa, Kuisu,bing, and Par!o, AA#, concur# +ar asa, C#A#, (Chair,an), ! 1!,,EN56 #once is not bindin: precedent, and #.1. (4A is in utter nullit$. <a i!e, Ar#, A#, also that N the concurrin: opinion of 9r. +ustice #uno. Ro,ero, A#, #lease see ,eparate 8pinion Puno, A#, #lease see Concurrin: 8pinion Litug, A#, !n the result. Mapunan, A#, No part, havin: opposed to the -ovOt when ! was in the 8,-. 5en!oFa, A#, ! concur in this and in the concurrin: opinion of +ustice #uno. Panganiban, A#, #lease see ,eparate 8pinion 5artineF, A#, ! am the E* +ustice in his dissent.

2%3

#enned b$ Associate +ustice Puirino 1. Abad ,antos and concurred b$ Associate +ustices Arturo B. Buena and 9inerva -on"a:a4Re$es.
203 2(3 243 253 2'3 273 2/3 2&3

E*hibit >#?G older No. !, Record on Appeal, p. 04. Anne* >A?G Record on Appeal, pp. %.4%7. Anne* >E?G Record on Appeal, p. '447(. Anne*es > ? and >-?G Record on Appeal, pp. 744%.5. Anne* >H?, Record on Appeal, p. %.'. Anne* >!?G Record on Appeal, p. %.7. Anne* >+?, Record on Appeal, pp. %.&4%0/. Anne* >H?G Record on Appeal, p. %0&. Anne* >N?G Record on Appeal, pp. %'&4%70. Anne* >8?G Record on Appeal, pp. %754%7'. Anne* >5?G Record on Appeal, p. %&(. Rollo, -.R. No. %.(//0, pp. /5(4/'&. Rollo, -.R. No. %.507', pp. 7447. ,ee Amended ComplaintG supra, footnote 4. Aand Ban) of the #hilippines # Court of Appeals, 05/ ,CRA 4.5. #eople . Ami:o, 050 ,CRA 4(. Aar:ado . 9asa:anda, 5 ,CRA 550. CA Rollo, p. 7'.. Article 0%40, Civil Code6

2%.3 2%%3 2%03 2%(3 2%43 2%53 2%'3 2%73 2%/3 2%&3 20.3

>Certain lawful, voluntar$ and unilateral acts :ive rise to the <uridical relation of =uasi4 contract to the end that no one shall be un<ustl$ enriched or benefited at the e*pense of another.?