Reavis vs.

Fianza
40 Phil 1017
Facts:
The appellees, Fianza et al., are Igorots. Fianza and his ancestors have held
possession of certain gold mines in the Province of Benguet for fifty years or
probably more. They owned the mines in question and they were claiming title
under the Philippine Act of July 1, 1902. They had all worked the mines, that no
one else had claimed them, and that the appellant, Reavis, had interfered with
their possession.
In 1900, Reavis, a Westerner, illegally entered and deprived the appellees
of their mines, and that he still continues to maintain his unjust claim. Fianza
brought an action to restrain Reavis from setting up title to certain gold mines in
the Province of Benguet, or interfering with the same, and to obtain an account of
the gold taken from the mines.
The trial court rendered a judgment enjoining the setting up of title to
certain gold mines in the province or decree granting an injunction as prayed. The
Supreme Court of the Philippines reexamined the evidence and affirmed the
decree. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Issue:
Whether or not setting up of title to the gold mines and the interposed
adverse claim are tenable.
Ruling:
It was held that there was no adverse claim that would have prevented
Fianza et al. from getting a patent under Section 45 of the Philippine Act of July 1,
1902. The provision states that were such person or association, they and their
grantors have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time
prescribed by the statute of limitations of the Philippine Islands, evidence of such
possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to
establish a right to a patent thereto under this Act, in the absence of adverse
claim; but nothing in this Act shall be deemed to impair any lien which may have
attached in any way whatever prior to the issuance of the patent.
It was suggested that the possession was not under the claim of title, since
they could have no title under Spanish law. But the Act cannot be taken to adopt
from the local law any other requirement as to the possession other than the
length of time for which it was be maintained. Section 16 of the Act shows the
intention of Congress to respect native occupation of public lands. It is urged that
the section confers no right other than to apply for a patent. But a right to an
instrument that will confer a title in a thing is a right to have the thing. That is to
say, it is a right of the kind that specifically enforces. It may or may not be true
that, if the objection had been taken at the outset, Fianza et al. would have been
turned over to another remedy and left to apply for a patent; but after trial on the
merits, the objection comes too late.
The Court found no sufficient ground to reverse the decree, and it was
affirmed.

Oposa vs. Factoran

224 SCRA 792
Facts:
Several minors represented by their parents filed an action against the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cancel existing timber
license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. The
case was filed not only on the appellants right as taxpayers, but they were also
suing in behalf of succeeding generations as well as generations yet unborn based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility in so far as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. It was claimed that the resultant
deforestation and damage to the environment violated their constitutional rights
to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health as stipulated in Sections 16 and
15, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), the petitioners
presented scientific evidence that deforestation have resulted in a host of
environmental tragedies. One of these is the reduction of the earths capacity to
process carbon dioxide, otherwise known as the greenhouse effect.
Continued issuance by the defendant of TLAs to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to the
plaintiffs. Appellants have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendants office regarding the plea to cancel the said TLAs. The defendant,
however, fails and refuses to cancel existing TLAs.
Issues:
1.

2.

3.

Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing or locus standi on

the said case.
Whether or not the court can render a valid judgement in accordance to
the prayer of the complaints.
Whether or not the TLAs may be revoked despite the respondents
standing that these cancellation of these TLAs are against the nonimpairment
clause
of
the
Constitution.

Ruling:
It was held that the petitioners have locus standi or legal standing on the
case as a taxpayers or class suit. The subject matter of complaint was of common
and general interest to all the citizens of the Philippines. The court found difficulty
in ruling that the appellants can, for themselves, and for others file a class suit.
The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology had been
clearly stated. A denial or violation of that right by the other who had the
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause
of action. The granting of the TLAs, as the petitioners claim to be done with grave
abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology hence,

the full protection thereof requires that no TLAs should be renewed or granted.
The appellants had also submitted a document with the sub-header CAUSE OF
ACTION which is adequate enough to show, prima facie, the violation of their
rights. As such, the actions must therefore be granted, wholly or partially.
Despite the Constitutions non-impairment clause, TLAs are not contracts,
rather licenses; thus, the said clause cannot be invoked. Even if they are
protected by the said clause, they can be revoked if the public interest so required
as stated in Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705). Furthermore,
Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that: The State
shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
government. The said right is also clear as the DENRs duty under its mandate
and by virtue of its powers and functions under Executive Order No. 192 and the
Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. Needless to
say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded. It is not a contract, property or
property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.
The petition was granted.