Scribd
Upload
63 views2 pages

Chavez V Philippine Estate Authority and AMARI G.R. No. 133250 July 9, 2002 Facts

This case involved a legal challenge to a joint venture agreement between the Philippine Estate Authority (PEA) and AMARI to transfer reclaimed lands in Manila Bay to AMARI. The Supreme Court ruled the agreement invalid for three reasons: 1) The reclaimed lands were still part of the public domain and PEA did not have the authority to alienate or dispose of public lands; 2) The certificates of title covering the lands were void; 3) Entering into the agreement without public bidding violated bidding requirements for valuable government property. PEA could lease public domain lands to private entities but not sell or transfer ownership of them.

Uploaded by

Jiro Acuña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views2 pages

Chavez V Philippine Estate Authority and AMARI G.R. No. 133250 July 9, 2002 Facts

This case involved a legal challenge to a joint venture agreement between the Philippine Estate Authority (PEA) and AMARI to transfer reclaimed lands in Manila Bay to AMARI. The Supreme Court ruled the agreement invalid for three reasons: 1) The reclaimed lands were still part of the public domain and PEA did not have the authority to alienate or dispose of public lands; 2) The certificates of title covering the lands were void; 3) Entering into the agreement without public bidding violated bidding requirements for valuable government property. PEA could lease public domain lands to private entities but not sell or transfer ownership of them.

Uploaded by

Jiro Acuña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chavez v Philippine Estate Authority and AMARI

G.R. No. 133250


July 9, 2002

Facts:
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA "to reclaim
land, including foreshore and submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any
and all kinds of lands." Then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA
the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay" under the Manila-Cavite Coastal
Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP).

On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting and
transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and
Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of 1,915,894 square meters." Subsequently, the
Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title, in the name of
PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the southern
portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Paraaque City.

PEA and AMARI entered into the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) through negotiation without public
bidding. President Fidel V. Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA.

The Senate Committees reported the results of their investigation and among the conclusions of their
report are: (1) the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public
domain which the government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate
these lands; (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and (3) the JVA itself
is illegal.

Petitioner Frank I. Chavez as a taxpayer, filed a Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends the government
stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that
PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and
Section 7, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern.

Issue:
Whether or not the stipulations in the amended joint venture agreement for the transfer to AMARI of
certain lands, reclaimed and still to be reclaimed is valid

Held:
No. The mere physical act of reclamation by PEA of foreshore or submerged areas does not make the
reclaimed lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA.
Likewise, the mere transfer by the National Government of lands of the public domain to PEA does not
make the lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA.

There is no express authority under either PD No. 1085 or EO No. 525 for PEA to sell its reclaimed lands.
PD No. 1085 merely transferred "ownership and administration" of lands reclaimed from Manila Bay to
PEA, while EO No. 525 declared that lands reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be owned by PEA." PEA's
charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide,


dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands . . . owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by
the government." There is, therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands, whether
patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to private parties its patrimonial
properties in accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional
ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the
sale of PEA's patrimonial lands. Moreover, the government is required to sell valuable government
property through public bidding. In the case at bar the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 covered not only
the Freedom Islands and the additional 250 hectares still to be reclaimed, it also granted an option to
AMARI to reclaim another 350 hectares. The original JVA, a negotiated contract, enlarged the
reclamation area to 750 hectares. The failure of public bidding on December 10, 1991, involving only
407.84 hectares, is not a valid justification for a negotiated sale of 750 hectares, almost double the area
publicly auctioned.

The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands does not automatically convert alienable lands of
the public domain into private or patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public domain must be
transferred to qualified private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands,
before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of
the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the
constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
domain. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by
certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may lease these
lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to private
corporations.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy