Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Sta Rosa Development Corp Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Xyra Krezel Gajete
    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases related to land use and natural resource rights in the Philippines: 1) Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA ruled that lands classified as watersheds are exempt from compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program due to their importance in providing clean water and preventing flooding. 2) LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR established that the Philippine Constitution limits foreign ownership of natural resources to technical or financial assistance agreements only, in order to assert national sovereignty over economic resources. Fully foreign-owned mining operations violate this principle.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sta Rosa Development Corp Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Xyra Krezel Gajete
    2K views2 pages
    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases related to land use and natural resource rights in the Philippines: 1) Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA ruled that lands classified as watersheds are exempt from compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program due to their importance in providing clean water and preventing flooding. 2) LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR established that the Philippine Constitution limits foreign ownership of natural resources to technical or financial assistance agreements only, in order to assert national sovereignty over economic resources. Fully foreign-owned mining operations violate this principle.

    Original Description:

    Envi

    Original Title

    Sta Rosa Development Corp vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases related to land use and natural resource rights in the Philippines: 1) Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA ruled that lands classified as watersheds are exempt from compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program due to their importance in providing clean water and preventing flooding. 2) LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR established that the Philippine Constitution limits foreign ownership of natural resources to technical or financial assistance agreements only, in order to assert national sovereignty over economic resources. Fully foreign-owned mining operations violate this principle.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Sta Rosa Development Corp Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Xyra Krezel Gajete
    This document summarizes two Supreme Court cases related to land use and natural resource rights in the Philippines: 1) Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA ruled that lands classified as watersheds are exempt from compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program due to their importance in providing clean water and preventing flooding. 2) LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR established that the Philippine Constitution limits foreign ownership of natural resources to technical or financial assistance agreements only, in order to assert national sovereignty over economic resources. Fully foreign-owned mining operations violate this principle.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sta.

    Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA


    G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001
    PARDO, J.:

    Facts:
    Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered owner of two parcels of land
    with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which
    provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its
    rights over the property, thereby destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents
    filed a civil case with the Regional Trial Court seeking an easement of a right of way to and from
    Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private
    respondents. After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian
    Reform for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. The landholding of
    SRRDC was placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner objected to the compulsory acquisition of
    the property contending that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged
    in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not
    entitled to any land as beneficiaries. The DARAB ruled against the petitioner. On appeal the CA affirmed
    the decision of DARAB.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire property
    formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657
    Held:
    Watershed is one of those enumerated by CARP to be exempt from its coverage. We cannot ignore the
    fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed
    purposes. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and
    the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds
    is an intergenerational responsibility that needs to be answered now.

    LA BUGAL-B'LAAN vs DENR
    Jan. 21, 2004
    Facts: R.A. No. 7942 defines the modes of mineral agreements for mining
    operations, outlines the procedure for their filing and approval, assignment/transfer
    and withdrawal, and fixes their terms. Similar provisions govern financial or
    technical assistance agreements.
    Petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for
    a temporary restraining order alleging that at the time of the filing of the petition,
    100 FTAA applications had already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million
    hectares, 64 of which applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations covering
    a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at least one by a fully foreign-owned mining
    company over offshore areas.
    Issue: Are foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale exploration, development,
    and utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils limited to technical or
    financial assistance only?
    Ruling: Only technical assistance or financial assistance agreements may be
    entered into, and only for large-scale activities. These are contract forms which
    recognize and assert our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources since
    the foreign entity is just a pure contractor and not a beneficial owner of our
    economic resources. The proposal recognizes the need for capital and technology to
    develop our natural resources without sacrificing our sovereignty and control over
    such resources by the safeguard of a special law which requires two-thirds vote of
    all the members of the Legislature.
    It is true that the word technical encompasses a broad number of possible
    services. However, the law follows the maxim casus omisus pro omisso habendus
    est which means a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be
    held to have been omitted intentionally.

    You might also like