EN BANC.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
133250
November 11, 2003
-versus-
PUBLIC ESTATES
AUTHORITY AND
AMARI
COASTAL
BAYDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondents.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
I still maintain that the
conclusion reached by the Court in its main decision is correct, and
while
the reclaimed land from the submerged areas of Manila Bay could perhaps
be aptly classed as being "agricultural lands," respondent AMARI
Coastal
Bay Development Corporation, being a private corporation, is
nevertheless
disqualified under Article XII, Section 3,[1]
of the 1987 Constitution from directly acquiring, except by way of
lease,
land of the public domain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Relative to the pronouncements
in Case No. L-21870, entitled "Manuel O. Ponce, et al. v. Hon. Amador
Gomez,
et al.," and Case No. L-22669, entitled "Manuel O. Ponce, et al. v.
City
of Cebu, et al.," where this Court held to be valid the assailed
reclamation
contracts, granting to a corporate entity the option to buy a portion
of
reclaimed lands, suffice it to say that the foregoing cases were
decided
on 03 February 1965 and 24 June 1966, respectively, when the 1935
Constitution was still in effect. Unlike the 1987
Charter, the 1935
Constitution did not contain any proscription against corporations
holding alienable lands of the public domain.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Just the same, I should
like to make a statement on what could be a grave concern on the part
of
individuals, who, not being personally disqualified to hold alienable
lands
of the public domain, may have been able to acquire in good faith,
reclaimed
portions of the subject property from respondent AMARI Coastal Bay
Development
Corporation. I believe that such contracts must be duly respected and
upheld
in line with analogous and applicable jurisprudence, as well as
equitable
considerations, in cases involving the conveyance to disqualified
aliens
of real property that, subsequently, are acquired by nationals
qualified
to own such property.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In instances, where
the successor-in-interest is itself a corporate entity, the
constitutional
proscription would stand, but if the corporation has introduced
structures
or permanent improvements thereon, such structures or improvements,
when
so viewed as having been made in good faith,[4]
could well be governed by the Civil
Code effectively entitling the builder to pay to the State a
reasonable
rent for the use of the land[5]
or to be reimbursed the value of the structures or improvements.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The above exceptional
instances are issues that, in my view, could well be litigated by the
proper
parties in separate proceedings.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
SEC. 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 to
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Pertinent provisions in the 1935 Constitution provided —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article XIII Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resourceschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public
domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
of
potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong
to the State and their disposition, exploitation, development, or
utilization
shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations
at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens,
subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time
of the inauguration of the Government established under this
Constitution.
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land,
shall
not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the
exploitation,
development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be
granted
for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another
twenty-five
years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries,
or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which
cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 3. The Congress may determine by law the size of private
agricultural
land which individuals, corporations, or associations may acquire and
hold,
subject to rights existing prior to the enactment of such law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
agricultural
land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals,
corporations
or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain
in the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
In De Castro v. Tan (129 SCRA 85), the petitioner, the vendor in a
contract
of sale, sought to recover the subject parcel of land, which she had
sold
to an alien vendee. The foreigner had, in the meantime, ceded the
property
to a naturalized Filipino citizen. In denying the petitioner the right
to recover the land, the Court observed that while the vendee was an
alien
at the time of the sale, the land had since become the property of a
naturalized
Filipino citizen, who was constitutionally qualified to own land. The
Court
was convinced that no public policy would be served if a contrary rule
were to be adopted. So also, in Republic v. IAC (175 SCRA 398), the
Court
sustained the conveyance of a land to a foreigner who later became a
Filipino
citizen.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
"Good faith" is deemed to be attendant where the builder believes to
have
a rightful claim of title to the property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Article 448, New Civil Code provides —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted
in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the
works,
sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in
articles
546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price
of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the
builder
or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably
more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay
reasonable
rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the
building
or tress after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms
of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Article 546 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the
possessor
in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed
therefor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith
with
the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the
possession
having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying
the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |
