Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the court hereby orders the defendants, their agents, and all persons claiming under them, to refrain from ‘further reclaiming or committing acts of dispossession or dispoilation over any area within the Manila Bay or the Manila Bay Beach Resort", until further orders of the court." On the following day, the same trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction [7] which enjoined the defendants, RREC and Pasay City, their agents, and all persons claiming under them "from further re…
WHEREFORE, the court hereby orders the defendants, their agents, and all persons claiming under them, to refrain from further reclaiming or committing acts of dispossession or dispoilation over any area within the Manila Bay or the Manila Bay Beach Resort", until further orders of the court." On the following day, the same trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction [7] which enjoined the defendants, RREC and Pasay City, their agents, and all persons claiming under them "from further reclaiming or committing acts of dispossession". Thereafter, a Motion to Intervene [8] , dated June 27, 1962, was filed by Jose L. Bautista, Emiliano Custodio, Renato Custodio, Roger de la Rosa, Belen Gonzales, Norma Martinez, Emilia E. Paez, Ambrosio R. Parreno, Antolin M. Oreta, Sixto L. Orosa, Pablo S. Sarmiento, Jesus Yujuico, Zamora Enterprises, Inc., Industrial and Commercial Factors, Inc., Metropolitan Distributors of the Philippines, and Bayview Hotel, Inc. stating inter alia that they were buyers of lots in the Manila Bay area being reclaimed by RREC, whose rights would be affected by whatever decision to be rendered in the case. The Motion was granted by the trial court and the Answer attached thereto admitted. [9] The defendants and the intervenors then moved to dismiss [10] the Complaint of the Republic, placing reliance on Section 3 of Republic Act No. 5187, which reads: "Sec. 3. Miscellaneous Projects x x x m. For the construction of seawall and limited access highway from the south boundary of the City of Manila to Cavite City, to the south, and from the north boundary of the City of Manila to the municipality of Mariveles, province of Bataan, to the north, including the reclamation of the foreshore and submerged areas: Provided, That priority in the construction of such seawalls, highway and attendant reclamation works shall be given to any corporation and/or corporations that may offer to undertake at its own expense such projects, in which case the President of the Philippines may, after competitive bidding, award contracts for the construction of such projects, with the winning bidder shouldering all costs thereof, the same to be paid in terms of percentage fee of the contractor which shall not exceed fifty percent of the area reclaimed by the contractor and shall represent full compensation for the purpose, the provisions of the Public Land Law concerning disposition of reclaimed and foreshore lands to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, finally, that the foregoing provisions and those of other laws, executive orders, rules and regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, existing rights, projects and/or contracts of city or municipal governments for the reclamation of foreshore and submerged lands shall be respected. x x x." (underscoring ours) Since the aforecited law provides that existing contracts shall be respected, movants contended that the issues raised by the pleadings have become "moot, academic and of no further validity o
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. JEREMIAS DOLINO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) REGION VII OFFICE, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 11, RTC, CEBU CITY, AND EMRO
G.R. No. 128010 -
CaseG.R. No. 168973 - CITY OF DUMAGUETE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR, AGUSTIN R. PERDICES, VS. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 168973 -
CaseG.R. No. 252940 - CENTRAL BAY RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND THE PHILIPPINE RECLAMATION AUTHORITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 252940 -