Rufino Nuez vs Sandiganbayan & the People of the Philippines

Equal Protection Creation of the Sandiganbayan

Nuez assails the validity of the PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by PD 1606.
He was accused before the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public and
commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in
several cases. It is the claim of Nuez that PD1486, as amended, is violative of the due process,
equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. He claims that the
Sandiganbayan proceedings violates Nuezs right to equal protection, because appeal as a
matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion; appeal likewise was shrunk
and limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence; and there
is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the SC, instead of the traditional two
chances; while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both
law and facts and to two appellate courts, i.e., first to the CA and thereafter to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as
appeals would be concerned.
HELD: The SC ruled against Nuez. The 1973 Constitution had provided for the creation of a
special court that shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials charged with
graft and corruption. The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special
court, the Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be
denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that those who may thereafter be
tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present
Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the accused therein, whether a
private citizen as petitioner is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. Further, the classification therein set forth met the standard
requiring that it must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must
be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
must apply equally to each member of the class. Further still, decisions in the Sandiganbayan
are reached by a unanimous decision from 3 justices - a showing that decisions therein are more
conceivably carefully reached than other trial courts.
MERALCO vs. CASTRO BARTOLOME
June 8, 2013
G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
petitioner-appellant,vs.
JUDGE FLORENLIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Makati Branch XV, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent-appellees.
The Manila Electric Company purchased two lots (165 sqm.) at Tanay, Rizal on August13, 1976
from Piguing spouses. After acquisition, they subsequently filed for judicialconfirmation of
imperfect title on Dec. 1, 1976. However, the court denied the petitionand the corresponding
appeal was likewise rejected. It elevates its appeal with thefollowing arguments;
fi rstly, the land in question had essentially been converted toprivate land by virtue of
acquisitive prescription as a result of open continuous and notorious possession and
occupation for more than thirty years by the original owner,Olimpia Ramos and
his predecessor in interest, Piguing
spouses, whom Meralcoa c q u i r e d t h e d i s p u t e d l a n d , a n d fi n a l l y , t h e s u b s t a n t i a l
r i g h t s a c q u i r e d b y R a m o s spouses and Peguing spouses for judicial confi rmation of
imperfect title, extend toMeralco by virtue of the provision of the Public Land Law.
ISSUE:
1.Whether or not Meralco as a juridical person, allowed under the law to hold landsof public domain
and apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.2.Does the possession tacked to predecessor
Private Corporation automaticallyguarantee its rights to possession and title of the
land.3.Whether or not it is contingent for a judicial confirmation of title before any grantwould be
extended to a juridical person.
RULING:
1.No. Private corporation or juridical person is prohibited and not allowed under thelaw to hold
land of public domain. Article XIV Sec. 14 of the 1973 Constitutionprohibits private corporations
from holding alienable lands of the public domainexcept for lease of lands not exceeding one thousand
hectares.2.No. The presumption that since they bought the property from the person
whooccupied the land in open, continuous and notorious possession of the publicland for more
than thirty years, does not automatically amount to rights and possession. It would cease
to be public only upon the issuance of the
certificateo f t i t l e t o a n y Fi l i p i n o c i t i z e n c l a i m i n g i t u n d e r t h e l a w. T h i s c o n c l u s i
on i san ch o re d on th e p ri n ci p le th at
" a l l l a n d s t h a t w e r e n o t a c q u i r e d f r o m t h e Government, either by purchase
or by grant, belong to the public domain

. Theexception to the rule is only when the occupant and his predecessors-in-intere

DENR SEC vs. MAYOR YAP

NOTE: This case is consolidated with G.R. No. 167707 (Secretary of DENR vs Yap).
Land Titles and Deeds Land Classifications Boracay Cases Positive Act by the Government in
Reclassifying Lands
These are two consolidated cases. In G.R. No. 167707, Boracay Mayor Jose Yap et al filed for
declaratory relief to have a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes for the land theyve been occupying in Boracay. Yap et al alleged that Proclamation No.
1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on their right to secure titles over their occupied
lands. They declared that they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12,
1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They declared their lands for tax purposes and paid
realty taxes on them.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition for
declaratory relief. The OSG countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public
domain. It formed part of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was not available
for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code. Since Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable and disposable,
whatever possession they had cannot ripen into ownership. RTC Ruled in favor of Yap et al. The
OSG appealed.
G.R. No. 173775
During the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, PGMA issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay
Island into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six
hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and
disposable). The Proclamation likewise provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on each side of
the centerline of roads and trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of the area
reserved for forest land protection purposes. This was on May 22, 2006
Subsequently, Dr. Orlando Sacay, and other Boracay landowners in Boracay filed with this Court
an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064. They
allege that the Proclamation infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay.
They have been in continued possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time
immemorial. They have also invested billions of pesos in developing their lands and building
internationally renowned first class resorts on their lots.
The OSG again opposed Sacays petition. The OSG argued that Sacay et al do not have a vested
right over their occupied portions in the island. Boracay is an unclassified public forest land
pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions of the island are
inalienable and cannot be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the
executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify lands of the public
domain into alienable and disposable lands. There is a need for a positive government act in
order to release the lots for disposition.
ISSUES: Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose any legal obstacle for
respondents, and all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their occupied lands in Boracay
Island.
HELD: The SC ruled against Yap et al and Sacay et al. The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all
lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right
to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. All lands that have
not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as
part of the inalienable public domain.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of State ownership, there must be a positive act of the government, such as an
official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or
other purposes. In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action,
report, statute, or certification was presented. The records are bereft of evidence showing that,
prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a
government proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh
incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private
claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land classification or
reclassification cannot be assumed.
Also, private claimants also contend that their continued possession of portions of Boracay Island
for the requisite period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the island into
private ownership. Private claimants continued possession under Act No. 926 does not create a
presumption that the land is alienable. It is plain error for petitioners to argue that under the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession by private individuals of
lands creates the legal presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable.

Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA
No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law. There
are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141,
namely:
(1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since time
immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
The tax declarations in the name of private claimants are insufficient to prove the first element
of possession. The SC noted that the earliest of the tax declarations in the name of private
claimants were issued in 1993. Being of recent dates, the tax declarations are not sufficient to
convince this Court that the period of possession and occupation commenced on June 12, 1945.
Yap et al and Sacay et al insist that they have a vested right in Boracay, having been in
possession of the island for a long time. They have invested millions of pesos in developing the
island into a tourist spot. They say their continued possession and investments give them a
vested right which cannot be unilaterally rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064.
The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically
give them a vested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title to the land
they are presently occupying. The SC is constitutionally bound to decide cases based on the
evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law and jurisprudence stand, private
claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of title over their occupied portions in
Boracay even with their continued possession and considerable investment in the island.