DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent.
(Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects nothing less than
recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an
express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it
from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104269,
November 11, 1993)
The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given
from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in
the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts.

The Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine
The Regalian Doctrine, also known as “jura regalia”, is a fiction of Spanish colonial law that has
been said to apply to all Spanish colonial holdings. More specifically, the Regalian Doctrine
refers to the feudal principle that private title to land must emanate, directly or indirectly, from
the Spanish crown with the latter retaining the underlying title. Lands and resources not granted
by the Crown remain part of the public domain over which none but the sovereign holds rights.
Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or
implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and
thereafter, the Philippine Republic. In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those
rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.

Based on the Laws of the Indies, the capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's
power of dominium, as cited in the Cruz v. DENR case. This was the foundation for the early
Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura
regaliais a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country
through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more
specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set
the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippine Islands in the following manner:
"We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions
not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to
the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true
deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what
to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways,
pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only
their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to
the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now
have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and
unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.”

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest. Consequently, all lands
became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government
took charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both
military and civilian. Private land titles could only be acquired from the government either by
purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown (Cruz v. DENR).

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. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987
Constitutions. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Thus, 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. Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be
disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the
plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public
lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing
of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership.

For an extended discussion of the Regalian Doctrine, read the article titled The Regalian
Doctrine as Embodied in the Philippine Constitution.

Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the
"rhythm and harmony of nature."

Oposa v. Factoran, GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993, on the State's ...
Doctrine Of Ultra Vires

Objects clause is contained in the memorandum of association and sets out the powers of the
directors in running the company. Traditionally, each power of the company had to be
enumerated, which resulted in detailed statements as to the powers of the company. Companies
are now able to use the phrase 'to carry on the business of a general commercial company' rather
than use exhaustive lists of enumerated powers.
The Introduction To Doctrine Of Ultra Vires
The object clause of the memorandum of the company contains the object for which the
company is formed. An act of the company must not be beyond the object clause otherwise it
will be ultra vires and therefore, void and cannot be ratified even if all the member wish to ratify.
This is called the doctrine of ultra vires. The expression “ultra vires" consists of two words:
‘ultra’ and ‘vires’. ‘Ultra’ means beyond and ‘Vires’ means powers. Thus, the expression ultra
vires means an act beyond the powers. Here the expression ultra vires is used to indicate an act
of the company, which is beyond the powers conferred on the company by the objects clause of
its memorandum. An ultra vires act is void and cannot be ratified even if all the directors wish to
ratify it. Sometimes the expression ultra vires is used to describe the situation when the directors
of a company have exceeded the powers delegated to them. Where accompany exceeds its power
as conferred on it by the objects clause of its memorandum, it’s not bound by it because it lacks
legal capacity to incur responsibility for the action, but when the directors of a company have
exceeded the powers delegated to them. This use must be avoided for it is apt to cause confusion
between two entirely distinct legal principles. Consequently, here are restricting the meaning of
ultra vires objects clause of the company’s memorandum.

Protection Of Creditors And Investors

In corporate law, ultra vires describes acts attempted by a corporation that are beyond the
scope of powers granted by the corporation's objects clause, articles of incorporation or in a
clause in its Bylaws, in the laws authorizing a corporation's formation, or similar founding
documents.

Ultra vires - Wikipedia