ESTACS

1. Mirriam College foundation V. CA 348 SCRA 265

MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JASPER
BRIONES, JEROME GOMEZ, RELLY CARPIO, ELIZABETH VALDEZCO, JOSE MARI RAMOS,
CAMILLE PORTUGAL, JOEL TAN and GERALD GARY RENACIDO, respondents.Atty. Ricardo C.
Valmonte for private respondents.FACTS:A school paper (Chi-Rho) and magazine (Ang
Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho) contents ofthe September-October 1994 issue that was
published in Miriam College was said to be “obscene,”“vulgar,” “indecent,” “gross,” “sexually
explicit,” “injurious to young readers,” and devoid of all moralvalues.”Following the
publication of the paper and the magazine, the members of the editorial board,[3]and Relly
Carpio, author of Libog, all students of Miriam College, received a letter signed by Dr.
AleliSevilla, Chair of the Miriam College Discipline Committee. The Letter dated 4 November
1994 stated:This is to inform you that the letters of complain filed against you by members
of the Miriam Communityand a concerned Ateneo grade five student have been forwarded
to the Discipline Committee for inquiryand investigation. Please find enclosed complaints.
As expressed in their complaints you have violatedregulations in the student handbook
specifically Section 2 letters B and R, pages 30 and 32, Section 4(Major offenses) letter j,
page 36 letters m, n, and p, page 37 and no. 2 (minor offenses) letter a, page 37.The students
that are involved are required to submit a written statement in the answer of the charge/s
butnone of the students submitted their answer instead they asked Dr. Sevilla to transfer the
case to theRegional Office of DECS, which have the jurisdiction over the matter. However, Dr.
Sevilla againrequested them to submit their answers but in response, the students have
their lawyer that submitted aletter to the Discipline Committee stating that the students'
position that the committee has no jurisdictionover the case. Despite, the committee
proceeds with the investigation. After which, the committeeimposed the sanctions to the
students. Some of the students will be expelled, dismissed,and others will besuspended
and will not be allowed to attend their graduation. The students filed a petition for
prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction/restraining orderbefore the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City about the decision made by the committee. The TRO was denied.
The students filed a Supplemental Petition and Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC
granted awrit of preliminary injunction. Both parties moved for reconsideration. On the
issue that DECS has thejurisdiction over this matter, but RTC dismissed the case. An appeal
on CA was made, the CA issued a TRO to Miriam College with regards to the sanction given
to the students

ISSUE:Whether or not Miriam College has the jurisdiction over the complaints against the
students.

HELD:YES, Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act should be read in a manner as not to
infringe uponthe school's right to discipline its students. At the same time, however, we
should not construe saidprovision as to unduly restrict the right of the students to free
speech. Consistent with jurisprudence, we
 read Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean that the school cannot suspend or
expel a studentsolely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such
articles materially disrupt classwork or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights
of others. The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or
expel. It is a necessarycorollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations and the
maintenance of a safe and orderlyeducational environment conducive to learning. That
power, like the power to suspend or expel, is aninherent part of the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution.SC rule that Miriam College
has the authority to hear and decide the cases filed against students
2. UP. V. Civil Service Commission April 3, 2001

3. Guingona V. Carague 196 SCRA 221

G.R. No. 94571. April 22, 1991

FACTS:

The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86.8 Billion for
debt service) and P155.3 Billion appropriated under RA 6831, otherwise known as the
General Approriations Act, or a total of P233.5 Billion, while the appropriations for the DECS
amount to P27,017,813,000.00.

The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No. 18, entitled “
Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred
Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act), “by PD No. 1177, entitled “Revising the
Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society,”
and by PD No.1967, entitled “An Act Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of
the Republic of the Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and
Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose.”

The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for
debt service, it being higher than the budget for education, therefore it is against Section
5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to “assign the highest budgetary
priority to education.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is unconstitutional; it being
higher than the budget for education.

HELD:

No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution Congress is
mandated to “assign the highest budgetary priority to education,” it does not thereby follow
that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the
 imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or
objectives.

Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment, to provide
an appropriation, that can reasonably service our enormous debt…It is not only a matter of
honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. More especially, the very survival of
our economy is at stake. Thus, if in the process Congress appropriated an amount for debt
service bigger than the share allocated to education, the Court finds and so holds that said
appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as unconstitutional
4. Republic Act No 8371
AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS
CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
5. Separate Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in Isagani Cruz V. Secretary of DENR et. Al. December
6, 2000
Facts:
In 1997, RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act/IPRA) was passed. Isagani Cruz and Cesar
Europa filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, questioning the constitutionality of
certain provisions of IPRA: a) It allows the indigenous people/cultural community to OWN
NATURAL RESOURCES ; b) It defines ancestral lands and ancestral domains in such a way
that it may include private lands owned by other individuals; c) It categorizes ancestral
lands and domains held by native title as never to have been public land; d) It violates due
process in allowing NCIP (National Commission on Indigenous Peoples) to take jurisdiction
over IP land disputes and making customary law apply to these. In the first deliberation of
the SC, the votes were 7-7, so the case was re-deliberated upon.

Issue:
Did the IPRA violate the Regalian Theory?
A. IPRA: Under the IPRA law, lands which have not been registered before, if granted
with a CADT/CALT, will be recognized as privately owned by the IPs from the beginning-
thus, has never been part of public domain.
B. Regalian Theory: Lands which has not been recognized as privately owned belongs
to the State

Held:
No Final Decision. Petition dismissed due to lack of votes; Law remained valid and
constitutional (7 to grant -7 to dismiss).

Justice Puno’s Separate Opinion: The IPRA Law DID NOT VIOLATE the Regalian Theory
1. These lands claimed by the IPs have long been theirs BY VIRTUE OF NATIVE TITLE; they
have lived there even before the Spanish colonization. “Native title refers to ICCs/IPs’ pre-
conquest rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private ownership as far back as
memory reaches. These lands are deemed never to have been public lands and are
indisputable presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.”
2. AND Native Title is an Exception to the Regalian Doctrine: ... Oh Cho vs Director of Lands:
“This exception would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant
and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial”

3. Native Titles provide a different Type of Private Ownership

“Sec. 5. Indigenous concept of ownership. --- Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the
view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material
bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that
ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs private but community property which belongs to all
generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers
sustainable traditional resource rights.”

4. It complies with Regalian Doctrine: Natural Sources within ancestral domains are not
owned by the IPs
* The IPs claims are limited to “lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by
ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made
by them at any time within the domains;”
* IPRA did not mention that the IPs also own all the other natural resources found within
the ancestral domains

Discussion related to the topic of the Torrens System and Mode of Acquiring Ownership
(land):
I. HISTORY ON THE MODE OF ACQUIRING LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE PHILIPPINES:
A. Laws of the Indies
“The Regalian Theory is a Western legal concept first introduced by the Spaniards into the
country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.”
• By virtue of Spain’s "discovery" and conquest of the Philippines, its lands became
the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown
• Back then, the Spanish Government distributed the lands by issuing royal grants and
concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian

B. Valenton-vs-Murciano Case (1904, American Regime)

• Long-time occupation will not necessarily lead to ownership of the land
• "While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he
proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must
make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed,
and until he did that the State remained the absolute owner."

C. The Public Land Acts and the Torrens System

1903: 1st Public Land Act (Act No. 926)
3⁄4 Provides rules and regulations for the homesteading, selling, and leasing of
portions of the public domain of the
Philippine Islands

1919: 2nd Public Land Act (Act 2874)

3⁄4 more comprehensive but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos,
Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges
1936: Present Public Land Law (Commonwealth Act No. 141)
3⁄4 Almost the same as Act 2874, except that it gave the Filipino citizens and corporations
which were previously only granted to Americans

**1903: Land Registration Law (Act 496)

3⁄4 It placed all public and private lands in the Philippines under the Torrens system
3⁄4 almost a verbatim copy of the Massachussetts Land Registration Act of 1898

II. TORRENS SYSTEM

Origin: Patterned after the Merchant Shipping Acts in South Australia by Sir Robert Torrens
Government’s Role:
The government must issue an official certificate of title attesting to the fact that the person
named is the owner of the property described therein, subject to such liens and
encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves
Certificate of Title: The certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims
to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of said certificate.

III. REGALIAN DOCTRINE

• Despite of several legal developments on land distribution, the Regalian doctrine is
still retained in our Constitution.
• Under this concept, all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources
enumerated therein, whether on public or private land, belong to the State.