1 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY.

BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES

Natural Resources
Lectures of Atty. Batacan

Constitutional Provision on Natural Resources

Where do we find the duty to conserve and preserve
our natural resources and what do we understand by
the term natural resources?
Natural resources is defined as material objects
of economic value and utility to man produced by
nature. Anything that is valuable to man and produced
by nature is considered as natural resources and will
constitute the patrimony of the nation, the heritage of
the nation.

The duty to preserve, conserve and develop our natural
resources is found in the preamble.

Preamble of 1987 Constitution

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid
of Almighty God, in order to build a just and
humane society and establish a Government that
shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote
the common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our
posterity the blessings of independence and
democracy under the rule of law and a regime of
truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace,
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

The duty to conserve and preserve... Wala ka
masyadong makita noh except on the preamble. But for
purposes of our subject, Natural Resources, we would
be concentrating on the provisions of our 1987
Constitution (Article 12 on National Patrimony.)

What is the concept of jura regalia in the context of
Constitutional Law? What is the Regalian doctrine?
The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all
natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the
earth even if the land where the discovery is made be
private. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals 160 SCRA 228)

Natural wealth is found in the bowels of the
Earth, within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines. This concept is embodied in Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

SECTION 2. All 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 other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of
the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases
of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries,
or industrial uses other than the development of
water power, beneficial use may be the measure
and limit of the grant.

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.

The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical of financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the
country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources.

All lands of the public domain:
1. Agricultural land
2. Mineral land
3. Timberland or Forest land
4. National parks


2 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
Of these four, only agricultural lands are
alienable. The rest are inalienable.

Again, what are under natural resources:
"All 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 other natural resources."

Ano ibig sabihin ng Regal? Kingly. Nung araw
kasi.. Kapanahunan ng mga kings. Ngayon, instead of
this property belonging to the king, hindi naman tayo
monarchy, they belong to the State. Now, the
ownership of the State of all these natural resources
carries with it the power or authority to dispose. When
you say that the state is sovereign, it means that the
state can do anything under the sun. Pero diba
nakakatakot yun if they can do anything? So ano ang
ginawa ng Constitution? It imposed limitations. The
State itself curtailed its powers as sovereign. So what I
am trying to say here? The power to own carries with it
the power to dispose.

The State can dispose its property under any
circumstances, anytime that it wants, without
conditions at all. But as I've said, the Constitution laid
down some limitations. What are these limitations?
Nasa section 2 pa rin.

1. "With the exception of agricultural lands, all
other natural resources shall not be
alienated."

Only agricultural lands of the public
land may be alienated. In other words, the State
cannot alienate mineral lands, forest lands and
national parks.

2. "The exploration, development, and utilization
of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State."

The State may..
1. Directly undertake such activities (e.g. Ang
State mismo ang magmimina); or
2. Enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements (e.g. The
State may enter into contracts to exploit or
develop our natural resources. These
agreements are limited to Filipino citizens
and Filipino-owned corporations. When we
say Filipino-owned corporations, we mean
majority of the shares are owned by the
Filipinos. Majority means at least 60%.
Why? In order to ensure that the Filipinos
are in control of the corporations.)

The Supreme Court said, "The
exploitation of the nation of the natural
resources of the Filipinos is one of the hallmarks
of our national integrity. If our natural
resources, which is the material basis of our
nation's existence, is placed in the hands of
aliens over whom the Philippine Government
does not have complete control, the Filipinos
may soon find themselves deprived of their
patrimony and living as it were, in a house that
no longer belongs to them." (Republic vs.
Quasha 46 SCRA 160)

So if you allow foreigners to acquire lands of the
public domains, they have money diba... Tayo
nga walang pera, so ano?

3. "Such agreements may be for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be
provided by law."

All agreements shall not exceed 25
years but renewable every 25 years. There is no
such thing as perpetual agreement. The
Constitution itself limits it to 25 years. But it is
renewable for another 25 years. If you may ask,
bakit 25 25 lang? If you add the two, total 50.
Why 50 years? Because that is the juridical life
of a corporation. The 25 year limit is not
applicable to water rights.

The general rule is agreements shall not exceed
25 years but renewable for another 25 years.
Exception: Not applicable for water rights.
(Water rights for irrigation, for water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses)

The beneficial use is the limit or measure of the
grant.
"In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power, beneficial use
may be the measure and limit of the grant."

3 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES

4. "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 use and enjoyment of the marine
wealth, of the archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone shall be
reserved for Filipino citizens. Filipino citizens
means Filipino natural persons. This is according
to the opinion of Fr. Bernas. So, this suggests na
100% Filipino or if corporation, 100% of the
stocks are owned by Filipinos.

5. "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."

The utilization of natural resources may
be allowed on small-scales. The term "small-
scale" refers to single proprietorship. If you
allow corporations to utilize the natural
resources, then you defeat the purpose of the
law.

Summary 5 Rules:
1. Only agricultural lands are alienable.
2. The exploration, development and utilization of
natural resources belong to the state
3. Agreements of the State and corporations shall not
exceed for 25 years but may be renewed for another 25
years
4. The use and enjoyment of the marine wealth, of the
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic
zone shall be reserved for Filipino citizens.
5. The utilization of natural resources may be allowed
on small-scales.

Sec. 3 talks about Rules on Disposition.

SECTION 3. Lands of the public domain are
classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the
public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses which they may be devoted.
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of
the public domain except by lease, for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not
more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred
hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares
thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and
subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the
Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands
of the public domain which may be acquired,
developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.

Ano yung rules?
1. Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands,
and national parks. Agricultural lands of the
public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses which they may be
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain
shall be limited to agricultural lands.

Only agricultural lands of the public
domain may be alienated. So, how about the
rest? How can they be utilized, exploited and
developed? Sabi ko kanina there are four ways.

The modes of exploitation of all the lands of the
public domain that are inalienable.
1. Direct activity
2. Co-production
3. Joint venture
4. Production-sharing

2. Only qualified individuals may acquire alienable
lands of the public domain.

By qualified individuals, we mean
natural Filipinos. How about corporations? They
are not allowed and qualified to acquire
agricultural land but they can hold. There's a big
difference between the terms acquire and hold.
When we say "acquire", ownership is
transferred to another individual. When we say
"hold," the ownership is retained by the State
but possession is given to the lessee. Therefore,

4 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
when we say "hold," we mean lease. There is a
lease contract.

What is the reason? Bakit hindi pwede ang
corporation mag-acquire ng alienable lands of
the public domain? Bakit disqualified sila?

In the case of Lauson (118 SCRA 492),
the Supreme Court said that the purpose of this
Constitutional provision is to equitably diffuse
land ownership or to encourage owner to be
keeper *** and take a family-sized farm and
therefore to discourage large land holdings by
corporations.

So, in order to equitably diffuse land
ownership. Nung araw kasi, ang mga
corporations, ang laki-laki ng kanilang land
holdings. In order to prevent the same
occurrence at the present, sa ating
Constitution, bawal na. Only Filipino citizens
may acquire alienable lands of the public
domain.

In the case of Republic vs. Villanueva
(114 SCRA 875), the Court said the "prohibition
was gained against undue exploitation of our
natural resources by large corporations. "

3. Filipinos are allowed to acquire not more than
12 hectares. For leases, corporation can only lease
up to 1,000 hectares.

"xxx not to exceed one thousand hectares in
area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not
more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not
more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase,
homestead, or grant."

The Court ruled in its discretion of the Congress
to open public lands for lease for or acquisition ***.

Summary:
1. Only agricultural lands are alienable
2. Only qualified individuals may acquire alienable lands
of the public domain. Corporations cannot acquire but
they can hold through lease.
3. Filipinos can acquire only up to 12 hectares while
corporations can lease only up to 1,000 hectares.


---- END OF FIRST EXAM ----







































5 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES

1903: The Public Land Law permitted the corporations,
regardless of the nationality of the persons owning
them, to purchase lands of the public domain.

In 1919 came Act. No. 2874. After 62 years from the
Public Land Law. It limited the exploitation of
agricultural lands to Filipinos as well as Americans and
citizens of other countries which give reciprocity to the
Philippines.

Then came CA 141. It became effective on December 1,
1936. It merely re-enacted Act. No. 2874 with respect to
the modification with the nationality provision of the
1935 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution preceded this
law because this was enacted about a year after. It
limits the disposition of lands to agricultural lands only.
Wala nang ibang class unlike before na kahit na ano
pwede. So, under CA 141, agricultural lands are further
classified into two (please check).

Also, we have Act. No. 3013 which covers the
disposition of patrimonial property of the government.

Another law Act. No. 1123 and CA 32 as amended by CA
316. These laws cover the disposition of mineral (?)
lands.

Another law is the Revised Administrative Law which
covers the disposition of timber lands. Now, we have
the Revised Forestry Law or PD 701. Dati, CA 542
amending the Revised Administrative Law. Yan ang law
governing the disposition of the timber lands. At
present, PD 705 which covers the administration of
timber lands and national parks.

We also have CA 137. This is an old law. It's the Mining
Act. We also have the Coal Act - RA 3719. Also, the
Petroleum Act or RA 387.

Then, RA 7160 also known as the Local Government
Code of 1991 where the local government units has a
limited power to re-classify agricultural lands of the
public domain within its territorial jurisdiction.

What office is mandated to control, develop or utilize
our natural resources?
As provided under Title 14, Sections 122 of EO 292 also
known as the Administrative Code of 1987 (ordered
during the time of Corazon Aquino.)...

In the case of Custodio Mari vs. Sec. of
Agriculture (92 Phil 410), the Supreme Court
said "The Administration and distribution of
public lands is committed by law to the Director
of Lands primarily, and ultimately to the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. In the exercise of such
power they have to determine the conflicting
claims of applicants and occupants of
disposable lands of the public domain."

Who has the jurisdiction to adjudicate conflicting lands
concerning disposable lands of the public domain?
DENR. So, it is the DENR or Directors of Land which can
adjudicate claims regarding disposable lands of the
public domain.

Is the grant of power and duty to the DENR operate to
divest the ordinary courts of their jurisdiction to
adjudicate conflicting claims? Example, conflicts in
possession. To say it differently, the law vests DENR to
adjudicate conflicting claims. Does it follow that the
regular courts have lost their jurisdiction?
The Supreme Court, in the case of Pitargue vs.
Sorilla (92 Phil 65), said "The vesting of the
Lands Department with authority to administer,
dispose, and alienate public lands, therefore,
must not be understood as depriving the other
branches of the Government of the exercise of
their respective functions or powers thereon,
such as the authority to stop disorders and quell
breaches of the peace by the police, and the
authority on the part of the courts to take
jurisdiction over possessory actions arising
therefrom not involving, directly or indirectly,
alienation and disposition."

What the SC is saying is that the power of the DENR
does not divest regular courts their duty to try and hear
cases involving cases with subject matter about
possession?

What is the jurisdiction of the DENR with respect to
disposition and alienation of the lands of the public
domain?
If there are two applicants over a single
property or a piece of land, then sa DENR because it
involves alienation and disposition. That's the
jurisdiction of DENR.
But when the issue involves breaches of peace
such as possession. Sabi ng isa na siya ang dapat na

6 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
possessor, sabi naman ng isa no. So, in issues of
ejectment. When we say possession, it does not refer to
ownership. It does not mean who has rights to own the
land for purposes of alienation. Meaning, the State does
not award this property.

To make it simple. When the issue involves alienation
and disposition of public lands, it is the DENR. If it
involves merely possession and breaches of peace, it
must be the ordinary courts.

When a court adjudicates the issue in favor of
one party, it does not declare who is the owner of the
property. It merely declares who is entitled for the
possession of the property. What I'm trying to say is
that if there is a disposition of ownership in favor of one
of the applicants, then it must the DENR ang may
jurisdiction.

What are the forms of concession of agricultural lands
under CA 141?
1. Homestead
2. Lease
3. Confirmation of Imperfect Title
a. Judicial legalization
b. Administrative legalization
4. Sale

We're going to discuss this one by one.

Let's go to Homestead. What is the concept of
Homestead?
By homestead is meant the home, the house and the
adjoining land where the head of the family dwells. It
can also be a home farm, the fixed residence of the
head of the family, with land buildings surrounding the
main house.

So it is the land plus the building = Homestead

But under CA 141, Homestead is a home of
disposition of alienable lands of the public domain. It is
a mode of a transfer of ownership of the disposable
lands of the public domains.

How can you own an alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain?
You apply for a homestead. If you are granted a
homestead, then you will now own the land.

What is the purpose of the Homestead?
The Supreme Court in the case if Jocson vs.
Soriano (45 Phil 375), "To give the homesteader
a place to live with his family so that he may
become a happy citizen and a useful member of
our society."

Sabi nila, the root cause of insurgency is our
poverty. So, the solution there is to eradicate poverty.
One way of eradicating poverty is to provide
employment. One way of providing employment is to
give our lands. Bigyan ng lupa ang mga tao na yan para
mawala sa kanilang isipan ang kanilang problema. So,
useful in the society na. That's the purpose.

Cross reference pala is Article 152 of the Family
Code on Family Home. It is the dwelling house and the
land on which it is situated. Family home is where the
family resides. It is the house, as well as the land. It is
exempt from execution for as long as it is constituted as
body home.

Is homestead exempt from execution? Hindi pa siya
pwede i-execute?
Cross reference nito is Section 13a Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court including Article 157 of the Family Code.

If you look at Rule 39 (Section 13a), it talks
about homestead as exempt from execution. Hindi yan
ang ibig sabihin ng homestead under CA 141. The
homestead under CA 141 is not the homestead
mentioned under Section 3, par. 3. So what does it
mean for homestead under Section13? It means for
purposes of execution, it means the dwelling house of
the judgement debtor resides and the land in
connection therewith. Kaya sinasabi ko, cross-reference
natin is Articles 152 and 157 of the Family Code kasi
halos magkaparehas sila.

Going back to the question, is homestead exempt from
execution?
The answer is yes but under Section 13 paragraph m
Rule 39, not under Section paragraph a.
(Properties specially exempted by law. But no
article or species of property mentioned in this
section shall be exempt from execution issued
upon a judgment recovered for its price or upon
a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage
thereon.)

If you read CA 141, the homestead is exempt from
execution. There is a limitation within the 5 year

7 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
prohibitory period. Within that time, the homestead
under CA 141, is exempt from execution.

In the cases of Beach vs. Pacific (49 Phil 385)
and Francisco vs. Parsons Hardware (67 Phil 234), the
Supreme Court said that the homestead cannot be
made liable for the satisfaction of any debt contracted
before the expiration of the 5-year period from the
issuance of the patent.

If may judgment debtor and writ of execution,
the court will order the sheriff to levy on your property.
Pwede bang i-levy ang homestead sa inyong debt? No.
Not within the prohibitory period. What if kusa mong
ibinigay? Dacion en pago. You pay your debt and your
dacion is your property. So, is it still covered under the
prohibition? Yes because the Supreme Court in the
Beach and Francisco cases, if you allow that to happen,
you are circumventing the law.
Basis: Section 118 of CA 141

What would happen after the 5-year prohibitory
period? Is homestead still under the exemption from
execution?
The answer is yes but not under CA 141 but under the
provisions of the Family Code under Article 152 for as
long as the homestead is also constituted as a family
home.

If within the 5-year prohibitory period, whether
voluntary or involuntary, sale, encumbrance and
disposition of homestead is exempt under Section 13m
of Rule 39 and Section 118 of CA 141.

If made after the expiration of the prohibitory
period, is it still exempt from execution? Yes but this
time, under Article 152 of the Family Code.

What is the extent of the exemption from execution?
...When the judgment is rendered to recover --- upon a
judgment for mortgage or foreclosure. Niutang ka,
ginawa mong collateral. Can you still claim for
exemption? No. That's an exemption.

If niutang ka, di ka nakabayad, di pwede i-
execute ang homestead or family home for the
settlement of the debt. Pero if nangutang ka sa bangko,
then ginawa mong collateral, you cannot claim "exempt
ko from execution."

Hindi kasali ang value in excess of Php 300,000
in urban and Php 200,000 in rural areas. So, it's
exemption is only up to Php 300,000 or 200,000.So, 18
years of age, does not own more than 24 hectares of
land. As to natural persons not allowed to acquire
homestead. As to married woman, generally, not
allowed. It must be the husband. As a general rule, the
married woman is not allowed to apply for homestead
unless she is living separately from the husband and not
dependent upon him for support. Another exception is
when her husband is insane or physically incapacitated
to work and third when her husband is in prison serving
a term of such duration as to --- him from complying
with the requirements of the law regarding the --- of
the land. So these are the instances where a married
woman may be allowed for a homestead.


What is the maximum allowed under CA 141?
Not more than 24 hectares. So up to 24 hectares only. I
think this has been modified by the 1987 Constitution
where the maximum area is only 12 hectares. As to the
issue whether or not a qualified person may be
qualified for more than 2 homesteads, as a general rule
no. The privilege is granted to a homesteader by Act.
No. 926 to acquire additional homestead but there are
exceptions.

As a general rule, only one homestead is
allowed. As an exception: where homestead is acquired
prior to the approval of CA 146, provided that the old
homestead plus the new homestead do not exceed 24
hectares. Again, this is modified by the 1987
Constitution. Second, when old homestead plus new
homestead are located adjacent in the same
municipality. Magkatabi sa isang municipality. And the
patent for the old homestead has not yet been issued
prior to the entry to the news homestead. Ibig sabihin,
hindi pa na-issuehan ng patent. Homestead entry,
meaning you are allowed to possess the land.

By the way, you read the case of Republic of CA
(129 S 331).

What is the procedure?
You have to apply a formal application in writing. Comes
the approval of the application. After, entry is allowed.
When entry is allowed, you are given time within which
to cultivate the land. After that, there is a hearing in
order to receive evidence of compliance of the
requirements of cultivation. After submitting the

8 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
evidence, survey will follow if plan is --- and eventually
the plan is approved. After the approval of the plan, the
grant of the patent.
If you are granted a patent, you register it in
accordance to provisions PD 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree to come under the protection of
Torrens System of registration in the Philippines.

Now, what is the nature of the right of
possession of a homestead applicant? After your
application is approved, you are allowed entry. Diba?
This is the ideal procedure but actually, whats
happening is that yung tao, nauna na yung entry kesa
yung application. So kung ano yung possession mo, yun
yung ina-applyan mo but that is not how it is supposed
to be. Supposedly, papasok ka lang sa area when your
application is approved.

So if you are allowed entry, what is the nature of your
possession?
Syempre, when you enter the land, necessarily you
possess the land. So what is the nature of your
possession as a homestead applicant? Remember, the
patent has not yet been issued. Your still in the process
of complying with the requirements of cultivation.

Before the approval of the homestead
application, sinabi ko kanina, yung applicant has no
right at all to enter the land. No rights to possess the
land. But after the application is approved, just to
reiterate, entry is authorized. If you are authorized to
enter, you have the right to cultivate and the right to
acquire title to the land after compliance with the
requirements on cultivation. Then, the right to be
notified in case of a cancellation of the homestead
entry. This is the case of Ayson vs. Republic (November
29, 1954.)

Now, what are the conditions on the authority
to possess prior to the completion of the requirements?
Nakapasok ka na, you are cultivating already but di mo
pa nacocomplete ang period of requirements of
completion. Your right is not indivisible. Your right of
possession is not indivisible. It doesnt mean that when
you are allowed entry that the land is subject of your
application can no longer be awarded to other tenants.

More significantly, your possession of the land
does not deprive the Director of Land of his control over
the disposition of that land and the adjudication of the
same in favour of other applicants or tenants. More
often, there is an overlapping of claims between
applicants. One cannot claim superior right over the
other because the possession cannot be indivisible. As
what Ive said, it doesnt mean that the Director of
Lands would lose jurisdiction over the land.

After the completion of the land requirements
(cultivation) and even before the issuance of the patent,
the right of the homestead applicant becomes a vested
right. Meaning, the homesteader here becomes an
equitable owner. More significantly again, the land
becomes a private land. Remember these three.

When is homestead ownership determined therefore?
The date of acquisition of the ownership is determined
from the time when the applicant fully complied with
the requirements of the Public Land Law for the
acquisition of the patent, not from the issuance of the
patent but from the time he is able to comply with the
requirements on cultivation.

CA 141 covers only alienable lands of the public
domain. So, lands which have been previously
adjudicated to a patentee and a certificate of title has
already been issued, the same can no longer be further
adjudicated by the Director of Lands because once the
land becomes a private land, the same is taken away
from the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands. It is
already a private land.

Lets talk about transfer of rights, sale or mortgage of a
homestead before the expiration of prohibitory period.
May an applicant of a homestead patent be allowed to
transfer his rights after the approval of his application
but before issuance of a title?
Section 20 of CA 141. The answer to this is generally no.
The general rule is no. He cannot transfer his rights
after the application is approved or before the issuance
of the patent.

Exceptions: First, the applicant has already
complied with all the requirements of the law that he
cannot continue of his application on his own. The
transfer is made to a purchaser who is legally qualified
to acquire a homestead. And the transfer is not made
for purposes of --- or to sell it for a higher price. Lastly,
there must be an approval of the Director of Lands.

Let us talk about the prohibitory period. It is counted
from the issuance of the patent.

9 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
What is the effect of a sale of homestead during the
prohibitory period? It is null and void.
What is the effect of mortgage, alienation or
encumbrance during the said period? Again, it is null
and void.

Even if the sale is approved by the Director of Lands, the
sale is still void. Even if the mortgage is made with the
consent of the DoL, it is still void. Even if the sale is
ratified after the prohibitory period, the sale or
mortgage is void. Kaya sinasabi ko, the prohibition is
absolute within the prohibitory period.

What is the rationale behind this?
The Supreme Court, in the cases of Ortega vs.
Tan (January 23, 1990) and Delos Santos vs.
Roman Catholic Church (Feburary 25, 1954),
said The prohibition of the law which prohibits
the sale or encumbrance of the homestead
within the prohibitory period is mandatory. This
cannot be defeated even with approvals
granted beyond the expiration of the period
because the purpose of the is to promote a ---
policy which is to preserve and keep in the
family of a homesteader that portion of the
public alnd which the State has gratuitously
given to him

In other words, it would render the very spirit
of the law as naught and meaningless. It is going to
render CA 141 as balewala. After the prohibitory period,
the 5 year, meron din siyang 25-year prohibitory period
but the period of 25 year prohibition is not mandatory
but only directory. Di kailganan sundin except when
constitutional issues are present.

Read these cases: Flores vs. Placima (50 OG 73), --- vs.
Montano (Gr. No. L-5567)

Within the 25-year prohibitory period, the
approval of the DoL is necessary. If you sell a
homestead within the 25-year prohibitory period, hindi
mo kailangan agad-agad makuha ang consent ng DENR
Secretary or Director of Land, but you can get it
anytime. Kapag kumuha ka ng consent, the same cannot
be denied. Well, except, sabi ko nga, on constitutional
grounds.

Section 119 of CA 141 provides a right of redemption.
Every particular piece of of land acquired under
homestead or free patent, provision of RA --- shall be
subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow or
legal heirs within a period of 5 years from the date of
conveyance.

So, if you sell it now, you still have 5 years in
which to redeem the homestead. You can read
the case of Belisario vs. IAC (165 S 101). So,
take note that the right of repurchase under CA
141 is a right. It is not an obligation. It is
transmissible and it cannot be waived even if
the waiver is part of the Deed of Sale.

If you sell a homestead and one of the
provisions therein is a waiver on the part of the seller to
re-acquire or repurchase the property, the same is void.
Your right of repurchase under CA 141 automatically
becomes of the sale even if this provision does not
appear in the Deed of Sale. It is impliedly written in the
Deed of Sale. What would govern is the law on Section
119 of CA 141.

When are you going to count the 5 year period of
repurchase?
Depende yan if it is voluntary. If voluntary, from the
date of sale. If involuntary, for example foreclosure of
the property and subjected to public auction sale, the
period is counted from the expiration of the 1 year legal
redemption period. And the legal redemption period,
usually, is counted from the date of registration in the
Registry of Deeds, not on the date of sale.

How do you construe the term heirs?
The Supreme Court said, in the case of
Madapos vs. Dela Merced (174 S 599), the term
legal heirs is used in Section 119 in its generic
sense. It is broad enough to cover any persons
called to the succession either by provision in a
will or by operation of law. Thus, legal heirs
include all testate and intestate heirs depending
upon whether the succession is by the will of
the testator or the law.

The enumeration under Section 119 of CA 141 is
not an exclusionary rule. It merely enumerates
the persons qualified under the law to make the
repurchase. So, nakalagay kasi sa Section 119,
subject to repurchase of the applicant, by his
widow or his legal heirs. Walang preference sabi
ng SC. But when the seller is still living, he is the
one who has the right of redemption. This is the
case of Umengan vs. Butacan (7 SCRA 311).

10 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES

What is the purpose of right of repurchase? Bakit
merong right of repurchase?
This is answered in the case of Ferrer vs.
Magante (50 SCAR 424) in reference to Rivera
vs. Oramen (24 SCRA 448) where the Supreme
Court said The applicant for a homestead is to
be given all the inducement that the law offers
and is entitled to its full protection. The policy
of the law is not difficult to understand.

The incentive for a pioneer to venture
into developing virgin land becomes more
attractive if he is assured that his effort will not
go for naught should perchance his life be cut
short. This is merely a recognition of how
closely bound parents and children are in a
Filipino family. Logic, the sense of fitness and of
right, as well as pragmatic considerations thus
call for continued adherence to the policy that
not the individual applicant alone but those so
closely related to him as are entitled to legal
succession may take full advantage of the
benefits the law confers.

As I said before, if it involves a voluntary sale,
the 5-year period of repurchase is counted from the
date or conveyance. If it is an involuntary sale, it is
counted from the expiration of the 1 year legal
redemption period.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Belisario vs.
IAC (165 S 101) and East Bank vs. CA (174 S
619), said The target period of redemption in
Section 119 of CA 141 begins run after the
expiration of the one year period of the
purchase of the land in an extra-judicial
foreclosure. The period is reckoned from the
date of registration of the certificate of sale on
the Registry of Properties concerned and not
from the date of option sale. So thats very
clear.

Right of repurchase when properly exercised.

Lee vs. CA (November 28, 1975) The Supreme
Court said that the right of repurchase is
deemed to have been exercised only when
tender of oayment has been made by the
vendor. It not sufficient for the vendor to
intimate or to state to the vendee that the
former desires to redeem the thing sold, but he
must immediately thereupon offer to repay the
price.

So within the 5-year period of repurchase,
before the expiration of the period, the homesteader
shall offer to pay. Hindi enough yung sasabihin lang niya
na I'm going to repurchase. It must be more than that.
In this case, the SC said you must immediately offer to
pay. Dapat sabihin na I'm going to redeem and I'm going
to say. There must also be a tender of payment. I-
tender mo ang bayad mo.

What do we understand by tender of payment?
In the case of Roman Catholic Bishop of
Malolos vs. IAC (November 16, 1990), the
Supreme Court said "Tender of payment
involves a positive and unconditional act by the
obligor of offering legal tender currency as
payment to the obligee for the formers
obligation and demanding that the latter accept
the same." Offer legal tender, ibig sabihin cold
cash.

However, in the case of Francisco vs. Bautista
(December 19, 1990), the Supreme Court said
that when you make a tender of payment... it
must be followed by consignation in court.
Once a consignation is made, the obligation is
made. The Supreme Court also said that "In
instances where no debt due and owing,
consignation is not proper. Consignation is not
required to preserve the right of repurchase as
a mere tender of payment is enough if made on
time as a basis for an action to compel the
vendee a retro to resell the property."

Further, the Supreme Court said where valid
tender of payment is made pursuant to the ---, the right
of repurchase is a right. It is not an obligation. So, within
the five year repurchase period, it is enough to preserve
the right in a valid tender of payment. If hindi gi-accept
ng creditor, even beyond the 5 year period, the right of
repurchase is still there.

Tan vs. CA (172 S 660): "Legal redemption is in
the nature of a privilege created by law partly
for reasons of public policy and partly for the
benefit and convenience of the redemptioner,
to afford him a way out of what might be a

11 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
disagreeable or inconvenient association into
which he has been thrust."

That is the rationale behind the right given to the
homesteader to repurchase the property. It is a
privilege created by law for reasons of public policy and
partly for the benefit and convenience of redemptioner.

For rural banks, there is a different period of
repurchase. You read the case of Rural Bank of Davao
vs. CA (217 S 554). Pag-rural bank ang nag-foreclose, the
legal redemption period is 2 years. So, if you add 5 years
to the 2 years, the period of redemption in favor of the
homesteader is now 7 years.

What would be the redemption price?
Article 1616 on the New Civil Code in relation to Article
597 and 546, the redemption price would be the price
of sale + necessary expenses and useful expenses.

Necessary expenses are those incurred for the
preservation of the land. Useful expenses are those
which increase the value of the thing or augment the
income of the thing.

The house constructed on a homestead is a
useful homestead. The homesteader has an
option either to require the vendee a retro to
remove the useful improvement on the land
subject to the sale a retro or to pay for for the
useful improvement introduced by the vendee
a retro. This is the ruling in the case of Calagan
vs. CFI of Davao (95 S 498).

Section 28 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: The
redemption price would be the purchase price plus the
interest plus assessments and taxes. So if you are going
to fuse Section 28 and Article 1616, you add the
necessary expenses and useful expenses in the
enumeration. Actually, in assestments, taxes are
considered necessary expenses. So, you included there
in the enumeration of useful expenses. So, purchase
price, interests, taxes as well as useful expenses.

Cross-reference: Salinilias vs. CA (169 S 829). What are
the instances when the right to redemption is not
applicable?
1. When the conveyance was made to an
immediate member of the family of a
homesteader and to his direct descendants and
heirs. (So, walang instance na lalabas yung
homestead sa family circle.)
2. Where the exercise of the right of repurchase is
not for the purpose of preserving the land
within the family circle but to dispose of it once
again for a greater profit.
3. Where the land is no longer devoted to
agricultural purposes but converted to
residential and commercial purposes. (So wala
na yung essence ng agriculture which is the very
reason why the homestead is granted to the
homesteader. Once converted to other uses,
the right of redemption is lost.)

Let's now take up sale.

For your reference, read the case of Jimenez vs.
Macaraig (219 S 230). Who are qualified to purchase
agricultural land? Filipino citizen of legal age and head
of family. Sale is not allowed to corporations by express
provision of the 1987 Constitution, Sec. 3 of Article 12.
Maximum area allowed is only 12 hectares.

Take note of the procedures in acquiring of agricultural
lands through sale.
First is the filing of the application followed by the
appraisal then publication of the notice of sale,
submission of bids, the award to the highest bidder and
of course, the payment of the selling price.

What are the conditions of the issuance of the sale's
patent? Take note of the conditions.
1. The purchaser must cultivate not less than 1/5
of the land within the 5 years from the date of
award.
2. The purchaser must show actual occupancy,
cultivation and improvements for at least 1/5 of
the land applied.

Upon compliance with conditions 1 and
2, there will be a survey of the area. After the
survey of the area, the sales parent is issued. If
you are issued a patent, you have to register it
under PD 1529 to be covered by the Torren's
System of Registration. Iba yung patent, iba
yung registration of title. The patent evidences
the grant by the government under CA 141 but
that is not enough to come under the
protection of the system of registration. So the
patentee still needs to register it under the
Registration Decree or PD 1529.

12 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES

Assuming you are occupying the land, you are still
cultivating it and the patent is to be issued, meron ka
bang rights to sell?
CA 141 allows the sale of an applicant over a sales
patent application provided that the sale does not
affect the interest of the government of the land and
the sale is made to a transferee who is qualified. The
transferee must not be deliquent and the sale must be
approved by the DENR.

1. Take note also of the restrictions. What are the
restrictions? Yung limitations nasa Sections 128,
110. 111, 112, 131 and 132. The more
important restrictions are:
1. There is a 10 year prohibitory period from the
issuance of the sales patent on encumbrance,
conveyance and disposal. So a patentee cannot
encumber ir dispose of the land within the
prohibitory period.
2. Joint ventures are not also allowed.
3. Take note of the special limitation under
Section 122 where it provides that lands
originally acquired under CA 141 (homestead
patent, homestead patent, sales patent) shall
not be encumbered, alienated or transferred
except to a person or corporation who may
acquire lands of the public domain under CA
141. Tandaan niyo yan. There is a big
implication.

So if you are a buyer of a land originally
disposed of under the provisions of CA 141, there might
be a danger that the sale would be declared null and
void if you are not qualified. The sale must be made in
favor if a person or corporation qualified or allowed
under CA 141 to own lands of the public domain.

There is no issue with respect to a natural
person because a Filipino citizen is qualified to acquire
lands of the public domain. So, the sale made by a
homestead patentee or a sales patentee to a Filipino
citizen, pwede yan. No danger. But when the buyer is a
Filipino corporation, you have to determine whether or
not that Filipino corporation is qualified under CA 141
to acquire lands of the public domain.

What are those corporations qualified under CA 141?
Corporations for commercial, industrial, educational,
religious or charitable purposes. These are the only
corporations which are allowed to acquire lands of the
public domain.

So any corporations which buy a land originally
disposed of under CA 141 and those not enumerated
above (under CA 141), there is a likehood that the sale
would be null and void. Take note of this.

Sa lease naman. Cross-reference Section 23 of CA 141
and Section 3 of Article 13 of the Constitution.

This time, Filipino corporations owned by at
least 60% owned Filipinos are qualified to lease lands of
the public domain. What is the maximum area allowed
for Filipino citizens, we have not more than 500
hectares and for Filipino corporations not more than
1000 hectares. Foreign corporations are not allowed to
lease agricultural lands of the public domain.

What is the period of lease? 25 years.

What is the procedure?
Cross-reference Section 24-27 of CA 141. Similar to sale
ang process. There must be an application, then
appraisal, notice, publication, bidding and afterwards
award.

I like to stress also the restrictions on lease. Provided
under Section 14.
1. Sub-lease is not allowed except when approved
by the DENR Secretary. 2. Sub-lease is not also
allowed to those not corporations and citizens
not allowed to acquire public lands.
2. The lessee is restricted to remove or dispose of
timber except as permitted by exisiting forest
regulation (PD 705.)

We're done with sales and lease. Next meeting, we are
going to discuss confirmation of imperfect title.



---- END OF SECOND EXAM ----







13 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
Okay, confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title.
There are two ways to confirm or to perfect an
incomplete title.
1. Judicial legalization
2. Administrative legalization or Free Patent under
the provisions of CA 141

Lets go directly to procedure of application for
judicial legalization. As the term suggests, the
application is filed for by the courts. Section 43 of CA
141 provides that it must be made in accordance with
the Land Registration Act. The Land Registration Act is
now PD 1529 or Property Registration Decree.

What is the procedure?
1. The applicant shall cause the survey of the land
applied for.
Kasi pag-sinabi mong confirmation of
imperfect title, when would this happen? If you
are in possession of a public land which is
alienable and disposable for at least for 30
years, then what you need to do is to have it
confirmed. Under the law, the lapse of at least
30 years would make the applicant or the
possessor the equitable owner of the land.
Wala lang siya titulo and to have titulo, he
needs to apply for the confirmation of the title.
So, this is an example of the exception
that prescription does not lie against the
government. The general rule is that
prescription does not lie against the
government and the exception is when the
government gives its consent. CA 141 is an an
example of the consent given by government
for prescription.
2. The survey will be attached to the application to
be filed via petition to the courts.
3. There will be an initial hearing.
4. The court orders service of notice to interested
parties.
It is addressed to the general public
that Mr. Juan de la Cruz is claiming ownership in
a public land attached therewith is a survey.
Those of you who have interest over the
property shall file comment or opposition for
the application of the imperfect title.
5. If there is an opposition, the procedure will be
more tedious.
For reason of due process, the court is
mandated to hear the opposition or petition.
6. There would be a hearing and decision of the
court. After promulgation, there would be
issuance of the decree of the court and
registration must be made in accordance with
the Land Registration Act (or Land Registration
Authority).
7. There will be registration in the Registry of
Deeds.

After following the procedures, that is the time
that a persons possession or property rights will come
within the protection of the Torrens System of
Registration.

What is the difference between Land Registration Act
(PD 1529) and the Public Land Act (CA 141)?
If you find for a confirmation of imperfect title
before the courts, under CA 141, you have to follow the
procedures outlined under PD 1529, that is you file a
petition before the court. If you file a homestead under
CA 141, you follow the procedures under CA 141. If one
applies under the provisions of PD 1529, and the other
one applies also for the similar application of the
Homestead law, ano ang difference ng procedure nato?
Judicial legalization under PD 1529 and Homestead
provisions under CA 141?
1. Under the LRA, the right of title of the applicant
is presumed to exist. If you are the applicant,
udner the provisions of the Property
Registration Act, ang sinasabi mo is that this
land is mine. Akin ito, because I possess this for
at least 30 years. I am now considered as the
equitable owner by virtue of prescription. It is
presumed that when you apply, you are
presumed to be the rightful possessor and
owner of the land. Ang hinhigi mo lang is the
confirmation. BUT under CA 141, no such
presumption over the right of the title. If you
file a homestead petition, ang sabihin nun is
that the property is owned by the government.
What you are saying is, bigyan niyo ako ng lupa.
2. Under the LRA, right of the title of the land is
sought to be confirmed while under the PLA,
the land is under claim of ownership.
3. Under LRA, dismissal of the court may be
subject to re-application. Under PLA, dismissal
bars future petition.
4. Under LRA, notice of losing the land (?). Under
PLA, once application is denied, the person
loses the land without affording another
chance.

14 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES

As Ive said earlier, Section 41 of CA 141, this
one of the examples where the State gives consent for
prescription. In relation to Article 1113 of the NCC
Under Section 48 of CA 141, the burden of proof lies
with the state to prove that the land is really a public
land. So magkaiba na ngayon yung position. So, if you
are claiming or applying under the provisions of LA,
particularly PD 1529, the burden of proof lies on the
part of the state to dispute the presumption. Again, the
presumption is that the land is owned by the applicant.
It is the obligation of the state to show otherwise, or
that the land is inalienable or disposable, or that
prescription has not set in.

Take note that juridical persons are disqualified
to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title under the provisions of CA 141. But you
read these cases
1. Director of Lands vs. Lo-od (134 S 463)
2. Director of Lands vs. IAC (146 S 509)
3. De Ocsio vs. CA (February 28, 1989)

Lets go to administrative legislation. The term
suggests administrative, its non-judicial. You file it with
the Bureau of Lands. Administrative legalization of
imperfect title, so yung venue yung magkaiba.

The procedures under the Bureau of Lands are
simple. Its more simple.
1. Apply with the BoL, then the BoL will just
make sort of notice (posting of notices sa
iba-ibang lugar).
2. There would be investigation before survey.
3. If survey is approved, the plan is drawn.
4. Then issuance of the patent.

Although the procedure is more simple, it
would take several years before the title or patent is
issued. Mas mabilis pa rin sa court kesa Bureau of
Lands. Now, after the patent is issued, the land
becomes private. Francisco vs. Villegas (145 S 87)

Although some cases would suggest that when
a parcel of land is occupied by an individual, then
prescription had already set in, the land is already
segregated from the mass of the public domain. In
other words, the land no longer becomes part of the
public domain.

Sabi ng court, in order for the right to ripen to a
patentable title, kailangan mo pa rin mag-apply para
magkaroon ka ng titulo. So that would be a concrete
evidence that the land is already segregated from the
land of the public domain. Its a proof of ownership over
the parcel of land. Case of Naval vs. Jonsay (50 OG
4792)

In your study of land titles and deeds, the free
patent is deemed final and conclusive. One year from
the date of promulgation of the patent. One year before
the title becomes indefeasible. So, the indefeasibility of
the title is conclusive one year after the issuance of the
patent. The exception is when the title is confirmed
through fault.

Director of Lands vs. Abanilla (124 S 358): The
Supreme Court was categorical when it said that the
certificate of title cannot be used as a shield to ---.

Take note of the restrictions under Section 118
of CA 141, sa free patents. Merong mandatory
prohibitory of 5 years from the issuance of the patent. It
cannot be sold, encumbered or alienated within the
said prohibitory period.

So, lets go to Minerals.

Refer to Section 2 of Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution.
1. The exploration, development, and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control
and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at least
60 per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens.
2. The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.

What are the limitations?
1. Financial and technical assistance.
2. Large-scale exploration, development and
utilization of minerals.

Ano yung pwede ienter ng President into
agreements? With foreign owned-corporations pero

15 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
limited lang. Refer above. Tsaka, it involves only mineral
lands, hindi pwede ang forest lands.

In the case of La-Bugal Blaan, the decision of
the Supreme Court on the issue on WON the provisions
under the Mining Act of 1982 allowing foreign-owned
corporations to directly mine the mineral lands, pwede
ba? The constitution says that their participation is only
for financial and technical assistance. In other words,
they cannot engage in actual mining operations.

But the Philippine Mining Act of 1982 provides
for a situation where foreign-owned corporations may
directly undertake actual mining operations. That
provision was assailed as unconstitutional. The
constitution does not allow it. The Supreme Court
decided that the provisions RA 7942 is unconstitutional.
But then, the respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration. The SC then said that it is
constitutional. The SC justified it by the maount of
money or profit the government will generate from the
operations of the foreign-owned corporations. So that
paved a way for the entry of foreign-owned
corporations.

Under the Spanish Regime, ang sinusunod is the
concept of jura regalia. All natural resources belong to
the crown, or to the king. If you want to exploit, you get
a decree from the king. During the American regime, we
have the Philippine Bill of 1902 where the disposition of
mineral resources of the public domain was reserved to
the state, nawala na yung ownership by the crown but
ownership by the state. So, the exploration and
exploitation are open to both Filipinos and Americans.
During the American regime, Americans were allowed.

Take note of other related laws, RA 1776 as well
as RA 7952. Maraming important laws like Petroleum
Act, Coal Development Act, Mineral Resources
Development Decree. Ito yung mga lumang batas but
they are still good. Although yung mga ibang laws on
mining, nawala na ito. Nadagdagan ng bago. At present,
we are using the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, not
1992.

Take note of the definition of minerals and
mineral lands. Also the classification of mineral lands.

If we go by the old definition, we have four
kinds of mineral lands. We have the metal, precious
stones, fuels (lands containing combustible materials),
salines, mineral waters, granite.

The small-mining act would only refer to metal
or metal--- ores. Yung particularly gold and tsaka silver.
RA 7076 does not cover precious stones, jewels and
salines and mineral waters.

What office is charged with the administration
of mining laws? DENR. The findings of facts of the DENR
is conclusive and cannot be changed unless there is a
grave abuse of discretion.

What is the maximum area allowed? With
respect to individuals, we have 500 has, and 1000 has
entire Philippines. For mining partnership, 5000 has in
province and 10000 has entire Philippines. For mining
corporations, 10,000 has.

Take note of the areas close to mining locations.
You read the case of Baguio Gold Mining vs. CA (July 18,
1991) and the case of Apex Mining vs. Garcia (July 16,
1991).

There are two cases here which Id like to
discuss in relation to mineral lands.

The case of Ungay M Mines, Inc. vs. IAC
(September 1987): An individual filed an application for
the said agricultural purposes. Ito yung lupa, nag-apply
siya. Pero dito, this man also applied for mining
operations. The issue here is WON a land can be
classified as both agricultural and mineral. Can they co-
exist? Under the premise that the said land can be
classified as both mineral and agricultural, the SC said
the issuance of load patents on mineral palce by the
President of the Philippines in 1962 in favour of the
petitioner, granted to it only the right to extract or use
the minerals which may be found on or under the
surface of the land. On the other hand, the issuance of
the free patents by the Director of Lands in 1979 in
favour of respondents, granted to them the ownership
and rights to use the land for agricultural purposes but
excluding the rights to use or extract the minerals which
may be found on or under the surface.

What the SC is saying is that both can co-exist.
The land may be classified as both agricultural and
mineral. Depende na, may limitation. If you are granted
free patent, sayo lang ang sa taas. You use it for
agricultural purposes but you have no right over the

16 NATURAL RESOURCES ATTY. BATACAN (SY 2013-14) | CUTIE NOTES
minerals found therein. Kung ikaw naman ang nabigyan
ng right to mine, sa baba ka lang. You cannot prevent
others from utilizing the land.

But then, one year later, thats how --- the SC is.
In the case of Atok vs. CA, decided April 15, 1950. The
SC said the rights over the land are indivisible. The land
cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The
classification must be categorical, in that the land must
be completely mineral or completely agricultural. It can
never be both. The land which was originally classified
to be agricultural ceased to be so mineral and
completely mineral once ---. Kapag mineral yan, mineral
na yan. Memorize the case of Atok (digest).

What is the rule? The rule is that once minerals
are discovered in the land, whatever the use to which it
is devoted at that time, such use may be discontinued
by the state to enable it to extract the minerals therein
in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. It may be
converted to a mineral land and may not be used by any
party, including its registered owner. In other words,
even if you are now the owner of a private land like 2
has of agricultural land and naay nakita na mina, the
natural resources even found in the private land, belong
to the state. So the state may take back your land to
mine the resources. Of course, there is payment of just
compensation.


---- END OF THIRD EXAM ----