Home › Podcasts › Land Titles Jurisprudence
Land Titles Jurisprudence · Podcast Episode 7 · 21:32
Who Owns Reclaimed Land in Manila Bay? Freedom Islands at Smokey Mountain
When does land reclaimed from the sea become land the State may sell, and who may own it?
A government corporation held three islands reclaimed from Manila Bay and signed a contract under which a private corporation would own 367.5 hectares of reclaimed and still-submerged areas. Atty. Jeric Dave Gallardo and Sweet Zel Grace Porras walk through the Supreme Court’s rulings on reclaimed land in Manila Bay: the Freedom Islands in Chavez vs. PEA (2002), the 2003 Resolutions on the motions for reconsideration, and Smokey Mountain in Chavez vs. NHA (2007), plus a twist: Chavez himself.
Two cases, four answers
Same question. Different facts. Different results.
The rule
Foreshore and submerged areas belong to the State and are inalienable; reclaiming them does not, by itself, make them alienable or disposable.
Under Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, natural resources other than agricultural lands shall not be alienated, and under Sec. 3, private corporations may hold alienable lands of the public domain only by lease. Chavez vs. PEA requires a law or presidential proclamation classifying reclaimed land as alienable or disposable, and a declaration that it is no longer needed for public service.
Recap
- The sea and the foreshore are natural resources of the State, and they cannot be sold.
- Reclamation alone is not enough: there must be a law or presidential proclamation classifying the land as alienable, and even then a private corporation may not own alienable lands of the public domain, only lease them.
- In PEA’s hands, reclaimed land remained public; in Smokey Mountain, the Court held that land already alienable became patrimonial when its titles were transferred to the NHA.
Bar tip
Asked whether a corporation may buy reclaimed land, ask the episode’s three questions, which are our own framework and not the Court’s words. Is it still sea? Is there a law or presidential proclamation classifying it, since, under Chavez vs. PEA, “There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession”? And to whom did the land go: to PEA, or to an agency like the NHA, which the Court described as “not tasked to dispose of public lands”?
The law
1987 Constitution, Art. XII, and the laws on reclaimed land
“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.”1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 2 (first two sentences)
“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.”1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 3 (third to fifth sentences)
“Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.”Civil Code, Art. 422
“The land reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore area of Manila Bay pursuant to the contract for the reclamation and construction of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Project between the Republic of the Philippines and the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines dated November 20, 1973 and/or any other contract or reclamation covering the same area is hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Public Estates Authority established pursuant to P.D. No. 1084; Provided, however, That the rights and interest of the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines pursuant to the aforesaid contract shall be recognized and respected.”P.D. No. 1085 (February 4, 1977), first operative paragraph
“In the case of land reclamation or the building of industrial estates, the repayment scheme may consist of the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land or industrial estate built, subject to the constitutional requirements with respect to the ownership of lands.”R.A. No. 6957 (the BOT Law, approved July 9, 1990), Sec. 6, last paragraph, as originally enacted
“… the proponent may likewise be repaid in the form of a share in the revenue of the project or other non-monetary payments, such as, but not limited to, the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional requirements with respect to the ownership of land: …”R.A. No. 7718 (approved May 5, 1994), Sec. 8, amending Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6957 (excerpt)
1987 Constitution (LawPhil) · Civil Code (LawPhil) · P.D. No. 1085 (LawPhil) · R.A. No. 6957 (LawPhil) · R.A. No. 7718 (LawPhil)
Chapters
- 0:00Cold open: who owns reclaimed land in Manila Bay?
- 1:58Who owns reclaimed land? 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Secs. 2–3
- 4:13Case 1: Chavez vs. PEA (the Freedom Islands and the Amended JVA, 2002)
- 9:04Case 2: Chavez vs. PEA (the Resolutions, 2003)
- 13:03Case 3: Chavez vs. NHA (Smokey Mountain, 2007)
- 17:07The twist: Chavez himself (the right to information)
- 18:53Why the difference? Three questions on reclaimed land
- 20:05Recap and bar tip
Cases cited
Each card opens the full text of the decision, or our case digest where we have written one.
Next episode
Land from a free patent: is it really barred from sale for five years?
All 8 episodes of Land Titles Jurisprudence →
Related episode
