ARTICLE XII Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution

Group 2

Ana Liza B. Arciaga

Joseph Bar Paulo

Submitted to: Atty. Lydia A. Bundac

September 3, 2016
Article XII Sec. 2
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-
five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State
shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution.

Section 2. REGALIAN DOCTRINE

Distinction between Imperium and Dominium.
1. Imperium
Government authority possessed by the State which is appropriately embraced in sovereignty.

2. Dominium

The capacity of the State to own and acquire property.

It refers to lands held by the government in a proprietary character: can provide for the
exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources.

Foundation of early Spanish decrees embracing jura regalia.

The Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia)

o [Carino vs. Insular Government (1909)]

o The universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Drown

o when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals
under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same
way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.

Scope:
The following are owned by the State:

Lands of the public domain:

Waters

Minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils;

All sources of potential energy;

Fisheries;

Forests or timber;

Wildlife;

Flora and fauna; and

Other natural resources.

Limits on Dominium / Alienation of Natural

Resources
General Rule: All natural resources CANNOT be alienated

Exception: Only Agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated

Exploration, Development and Utilization of
Natural Resources
1. Shall be under the full control and supervision of the State
2. Means
a) The state may DIRECTLY UNDERTAKE such activities

b) The state may enter into CO-PRODUCTION, JOINT VENTURE OR PRODUCTION-SHARING

arrangements with

Filipino citizen or

Corporation or association at least 60% of whose capital is owned by

such citizens

60% requirement

Limited to Filipino citizens or to Corporations or Associations at least 60% of capital

is owned by such citizens.

The requirement is intended for the conservation of indigenous natural resources

for Filipino posterity.

3. Limitations:

Period: It should not exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years

Under terms and conditions as may be provided by law.

4. In case of water rights/ water supply/ fisheries/ industrial uses other than the
development of water power
The beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

Small-
Small-scale Utilization of Natural Resources
1. Congress may, by law, authorize small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens

2. Congress may also authorize cooperative fish farming with priority given to subsistence
fishermen and fishworkers in the rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.
Technical or Financial Assistance
Agreements with Foreign Owned
Corporations
1. The President may enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations involving technical
or financial assistance for large-scale exploration etc. of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral
oils.

2. These agreements should be in accordance with the general terms and conditions provided by
law based on the real contributions to economic growth and general welfare of the country.

3. In the agreements, the State should promote the development and use of local scientific and
technical resources.

4. The President should notify Congress of every contract under this provision within 30 days from
its execution.

5. Management and service contracts are not allowed under this rule.

Protection of Marine Wealth

1. The State
State shall protect its marine wealth in its:
a) Archipelagic waters

b) Territorial sea &

c) Especial Economic Zone

2. The State shall reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
Other Limitations
1. Agreements for the exploitation of the natural resources can have a life of only 25 years.

a) 25 year period reasonable time to attract capital, local and foreign to enable them to
recover their investment and make profit

b) Not applicable to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses
other than the development of water power

c) Applicable to water rights for waterpower

Lee Hong Kok v. David [150-
[150-C Phil. 542
(1972)]
No Public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or
implied from the government. It is indispensable that there be a showing of a title
from the State
Facts:

This is regarding a piece of land which Aniano David acquired lawful title thereto, pursuant to his
miscellaneous sales application. After approval of his application, the Director of Lands issued an order
of award and issuance of sales patent, covering said lot by virtue of which the Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent. The Register of Deeds then
issued an original certificate of title to David.

During all this time, Lee Hong Kok did not oppose nor file any adverse claim.

Issue: Whether or not the grant granted by the Government to David was valid.

Held:

Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. This
was not done by said officers but by private parties like the plaintiffs, who cannot claim that the patent
and title issued for the land involved are void since they are not the registered owners thereof nor had
they been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings after claiming it as their private property.

The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. Whether the grant was in
conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the
government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the grant is a question
between the grantee and the government.
Cario v. Insular Government [41 Phil. 935
(1909)]
Any person claiming ownership of the portion ofof the public domain must be able to
show title from the state according to any of the recognized modes of acquisition or
Title.
Facts:

Carino, an Igorot filed for the registration of a certain land but the CFI and SC dismissed his petition for
application. He and his ancestors had held the land as owners for more than 50 years before the Treaty
of Paris, April 11, 1899. They had held the land as recognized owners by the Igorots (grandfather
maintain fences for holding cattle>father had cultivated parts and used parts for pasturing cattle> he
used it for pasture).

The government contends that the land in question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, all
lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles. Moreover, there is no
prescription against the Crown.

Issue: Whether or not the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian
Doctrine.

Held:

No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land.

The United States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared:

It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as testimony or memory goes, the
land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.

There is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession
under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish
Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura regalia.
Republic v. CA [160 SCRA 228 (1988)
The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that may be found in
the bowels of the earth even if the land where
where the discovery is made be private.

Facts:

These cases arose from the application for registration of a parcel of land filed on 1945 by Jose de la
Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children. and Eduardo. The lands were sold to Dela
Rosa and his children by Balbalio and Alberto, respectively, in 1964 who testifies that they had acquired
the lands by virtue of prescription.

The application was opposed by Benguet Consolidated, Inc . and Atok Big Wedge Corporation invoking
their superior right of ownership. Benguet opposed on the ground June that the Bug mineral claim
were sold to it by Kelly who located the claim and recorded it on 1909. For its part, Atok alleged that
portions of lots were covered by the Emma and Fredia mineral claims located by Harrison and Reynolds
on 1930, and recorded on 1931, in the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. Both Benguet and Atok
since then been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots .

The Republic has filed its own petition for review and reiterates its argument that neither the private
respondents nor the two mining companies have any valid claim to the land because it is not alienable
and registerable

Issue: Whether or not Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in question by virtue of
their respective mining claims.

Held:

This is an application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is intended for the benefit of
the State, not of private persons. The rule simply reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in
public and even private land devoted to "agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or (for) any
purpose other than mining." Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are
discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals
without the permission of the State to which such minerals belong.

Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in question by virtue of their respective mining
claims which they validly acquired before the Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands
of the public domain except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its
adoption. The land was not and could not have been transferred to the private respondents by virtue of
acquisitive prescription, nor could its use be shared simultaneously by them and the mining companies
for agricultural and mineral purposes.