04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 2. The State imposed upon respondent, as holder of IFMA No. R-9040, the conditions, the means, and the manner by which the IFMA area shall be managed, developed, and protected; 3. The State, through the DENR Secretary, shall not collect any rental within the first five (5) years of the IFMA, after which it shall be entitled to annual rental of fifty centavos (P0.50) per hectare from the sixth to the tenth year thereof, and one peso (P1.00) per hectare thereafter; 4. The IFMA area, except only the trees and other crops planted and the permanent improvements constructed by the IFMA holder, remains the property of the State; and 5. Upon cancellation of the IFMA through the fault of the holder, all improvements including forest plantations existing within the IFMA area shall revert to and become the property of the State. An IFMA has for its precursor the Timber License Agreement (TLA), one of the tenurial instruments issued by the State to its grantees for the efficient management of the country's dwindling forest resources. Jurisprudence has been consistent in holding that license agreements are not contracts within the purview of the due process and the non-impairment of contracts clauses enshrined in the Constitution. Our pronouncement in Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.[28] is enlightening In unequivocal terms, we have consistently held that such licenses concerning the harvesting of timber in the country's forests cannot be considered contracts that would bind the Government regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. (citing Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792, 811) Such unswerving verdict is synthesized in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., (id., at pp. 811, 812) where we held: In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the nonimpairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides: "x x x Provided, that when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein x x x." elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46832 10/16