Natural Resources & Environmental Law

College of Law
Atty. Gray S. Tambiac

GROUP 1

Group Members:
Escalderon, Albert James
Esperanza, Glorianne Delle
Oblay, Delia
Salio-an, Merab
Sampaga, Christian
Toyokan, Maryfe
Tudlong, Lovely

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO

PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW………………………….. 3
THE PUBLIC LAND ACT, CA 141………………………………. 7
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS AS AN EXECUTIVE
PREROGATIVE……………………………………………………… 11
SPECIFIC MODES OF DISPOSITION OF ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE LANDS………………………………………………. 19
EFFECT OF VOID CONVEYANCE………………………………. 38

2|Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING
TO PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

ARTICLE I – National Territory

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all
the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including
its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting
the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
- This constitutional provision paved the way for the creation of
environmental laws as to its jurisdiction.
ARTICLE II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies
SECTION 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
Oposa v. Factoran
FACTS: The petitioners are minors being represented by their parents who
are suing in their capacity as taxpayers and citizens of the Philippines.
They contend that the DENR should cancel the Timber License
Agreements (TLAs) granted to private corporations, in order to protect the
welfare of the future generations. The minors, also invoking the right
mentioned in Sec. 16 of Article II. They state that since the future
generations won’t be able to enjoy what they are now enjoying is in
accordance with the principle of intergenerational responsibility and
justice.
ISSUE: WON Section 16 of Article II is a source of right thus a source of
cause of action.
RULING: Yes. The Court held that such provision is a self-executory
provision which should be correctly administered by the DENR. Even
without the presence of the law, it is a natural law, and therefore must be

3|Page
a source of a cause of action. The court ruled that these rights are not
necessary to be written in the Constitution as they are assumed to
exist from the inception of humankind. The framers of the Constitution
included these rights because they are important, and the state has the
obligation to protect and preserve the environment and the state may
forget that these rights should be upheld. The right to a balanced and
healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
ARTICLE XII – National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 2. 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. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under
such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial
uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may
be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such

4|Page
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered
into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.
- Section 2 of Article XII on National Economy deals with the Regalian
Doctrine. The Regalian doctrine is defined in the case of Director of
Lands v. IAC as the effect that all lands of the public domain belong to
the State, and that the State is the source of any asserted right to
ownership in land and charged with the conversation of such
patrimony. Under this doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
A positive act of the executive branch is needed to declassify a forest
land into alienable or disposable land for agriculture or other purposes.
- The Regalian Doctrine does not negate the native title to lands held in
private ownership since time immemorial as mentioned in the case of
Carino v. Local Government. The court cited the Supreme Court of US
through Holmes that held that “the land has been held by individuals
under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to
have been public land.”
- This constitutional provision is the root of various laws enacted to
protect the environment which are the following:
o Philippine Environment Code – provides for the development of
standards and management framework for air quality, water
quality, and land use management.
o The Revised Forestry Code – the basic policy is that the multiple
uses of forest lands shall be oriented to the development and
progress requirements of the country.
o Philippine Mining Act – provides that all mineral resources are
owned by the State, and aims to promote their rational
exploration, development, utilization and conservation.
Section 5. The state, subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and national development policies and programs shall protect the
rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands
to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws
governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership
and extent of ancestral domain.

5|Page
- This constitutional provision paved the way for the legislation of
Republic Act 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997. One
salient feature of this law is the identification and protection of the
entitlement of the Indigenous Cultural Communities and the
Indigenous Peoples as the proper owners of their ancestral lands. This
law was enacted to stop the historical injustices experienced by the
indigenous people.
- They have also the rights in harvesting, extraction, development, or
exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domain.
Article XIII – Social Justice and Human Rights
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence
fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use
of local marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It
shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate
technology and research, adequate financial, production, and
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall
extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against
foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their
labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
- This constitutional provision is embodied in Republic Act 8550 or the
Fisheries Code of 1998. This code is the governing law in Philippine
fisheries to address the issues of resource degradation and unrelenting
poverty among municipal fishers. Its provisions apply in all Philippine
waters and all other waters over which the Philippines has sovereignty
and jurisdiction, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf,
and aquatic and fishery resources, whether inland, coastal or offshore.

6|Page
 THE PUBLIC LAND ACT, CA 141
 Approved on November 7, 1936.
 The law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain.
 It prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading, selling,
and leasing of portions of the public domain of the Philippine
Islands.
 It prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect
their titles to public lands in the Islands.
 It also provided for the “issuance of patents to certain native settlers
upon public lands,” for the establishment of town sites and sale of
lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the
cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in
the Islands.
 In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumption that title
to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the
government; and that the government’s title to public land sprung
from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties between
Spain and the United States.

PUBLIC LAND
 Referred to all land of the public domain whose title still remained
in the government and are thrown open to private appropriation and
settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of the
government and the friar lands.

APPLICATION OF CA 141
 Applies to all lands of public domain which have been declared open
to disposition or concession and officially delimited and classified
 Provisions on the different modes of government grant—
homesteads, patents, sales, and reservations for public and
semipublic purpose.
 Has a chapter on judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles based on acquisitive prescription.

CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS UNDER PUBLIC LAND ACT

SECTION 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of

Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of
the public domain into —
(a) Alienable or disposable;
(b) Timber or Forest, and
(c) Mineral lands,

7|Page
 and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from
one class to another, for the purposes of their administration and
disposition.

A.) ALIENABLE OR DISPOSABLE LANDS

 Refer to those lands of the public domain which have been subject
of the present system of classification and declared as not needed
for forest, mineral purposes or national parks.
 Lands of the public domain open for disposition.

B.) TIMBER OF FOREST LANDS

 Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the
Constitution classifying lands of the public domain into agricultural,
forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks, do not
necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded land or expanses covered
by dense growths of trees and underbrushes.
 A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does
not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may
have stripped it of its forest cover. The classification is descriptive of
its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what
the land actually looks like.
 Forest lands or forest reserves are not capable of private
appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot covert
them into private property. A positive act of the government is
needed to declassify land which is classified as forest, to convert it
into alienable or disposable land or for other purposes. The
classification of forest land or any land for that matter is descriptive
of its legal nature or statues, and does not have to be descriptive of
what the land looks like (Dela Cruz vs. CA, 186 SCRA 230).
 A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the
cadastral court to register under the Torrens System (Ibid., citing
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648, Republic vs. Vera,
1983, 120 SCRA 210, Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 1984,
129 SCRA 689).

C.) MINERAL LANDS

 Those lands in which minerals exist in sufficient quantity and
grade.
 Areas where mineral resources are found.
 Mineral resources mean any concentration of mineral/rocks with
potential economic value.
o The ownership of mineral resources is provided in RA No.
7942, known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, viz.:

8|Page
 “SEC. 4. Ownership of Mineral Resources. — Mineral
resources are owned by the State and the exploration,
development, and processing thereof shall be under its full
control and supervision.
The State may directly undertake such activities or it
may enter into mineral agreements with contractors. The
State shall recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands as provided for
by the Constitution.”
 Possession of mineral land, no matter how long, does not confer
possessory rights.
 The Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that
may be found in the bowels of the earth even if the land where
the discovery is made be private. The rule simply reserves to the
State all minerals that may be found in public and even private
land devoted to “agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential
or (for) any purpose other than mining.”
o Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in which
minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does
not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals
without the permission of the State to which such minerals
belong. Once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever
the use to which it is being devoted at the time, such use
may be discontinued by the State to enable it to extract the
minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.
The land is thus converted to mineral land and may not be
used by any private party, including the registered owner
thereof, for any other purpose that will impede the mining
operations to be undertaken therein. For the loss sustained
by such owner, he is of course entitled to just
compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate
expropriation proceedings (Republic v. Court of Appeals
and De la Rosa)

CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS AS AN EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE

 Before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of public
domain, the President must first officially classify these lands as
alienable or disposable, and then declare them open for disposition
or concession. There must be no law reserving these lands for public
use or quasi-public uses.
 Section 6 of the Public Land Act classifies lands of the public domain
into alienable or disposable, timber, and mineral lands. The

9|Page
 classification is a prerogative of the executive department and not
the courts.
 “The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the
Executive Department of the Government and not of the courts. In
the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified
land until it is released therefrom and rendered open to disposition.
This should be so under time-honored Constitutional precepts. This
is also in consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the
public domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source
of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.”

CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO DISPOSITION

SECTION 9. For the purpose of their administration and disposition, the

lands of the public domain alienable or open to disposition shall be
classified, according to the use or purposes to which such lands are
destined, as follows:
(a) Agricultural
(b) Residential commercial industrial or for similar productive
purposes
(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes
(d) Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.

The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and

Commerce, shall from time to time make the classifications provided for in
this section, and may, at any time and in a similar manner, transfer lands
from one class to another.

A.) Agricultural Land

 May be defined as those alienable portions of the public domain
which are neither timber nor mineral lands. Thus, the term
includes residential, commercial and industrial lands for the
reason that these lands are neither timber nor mineral lands.
 Means land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to
crop lands, salt beds, fishponds, idle land and abandoned land.
 Refers to land devoted to agricultural activities. It contemplates
land that are suitable for farming.

B.) Residential commercial industrial or for similar productive purposes

 Lands of the public domain which are intended for residential,
commercial, industrial or other productive purposes is governed
by Chapter IX (Classification and Concession of Public Lands

10 | P a g e
 Suitable for Residence, Commerce and Industry) of the Public
Land Act.
o Lands under this chapter are classified as:
(a) Lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling,
or other means
(b) Foreshore
(c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering
upon the shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers
(d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes.

C.) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes

 Lands for the purpose of founding a cemetery, church, college,
school, university, or other institutions for educational,
charitable, or philanthropical purposes or scientific research,
in which the area to be such as may actually and reasonably
be necessary to carry out such purposes.

D.) Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.
 Chapter XII of the Public Land Act governs the establishment of
reservations for public and semi-public purposes.
o Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Environment
and Natural Resources, the President may designate by
proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public
domain as reservations for the use of the Republic of the
Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants
thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this
purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the
public interest requires it. A certified copy of every
proclamation of the President issued under the provisions
of this title shall be forwarded to the Director of Lands for
record in his office, and a copy of this record shall be
forwarded to the Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the land lies. Upon receipt of such certified copy, the
Director of Lands shall order the immediate survey of the
proposed reservation if the land has not yet been surveyed,
and as soon as the plat has been completed, he shall
proceed in accordance with the next following section.
 The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of
section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be
subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition
until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or
by proclamation of the President.

11 | P a g e
 CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS AS AN
EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE
The classification of lands is a prerogative of the executive department and
not the courts. CA NO. 141 (enacted on November 7, 1936) governed the
classification and disposition of lands of the public domain.
Before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of public domain,
the President must first officially classify these lands as alienable or
disposable, and then declare them open to disposition or concession.
Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are further classified
according to their uses into:
a. Agricultural;
b. Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive
purposes;
c. Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or
d. Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.
In the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land
until it is released therefrom and rendered open to disposition.
The following cases will help us better understand this topic.
CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY, G.R. NO. 133250
FACTS: From the time of president Marcos until Estrada, portions of
Manila Bay were being reclaimed. A law was passed creating the Public
Estate Authority which was granted with the power to transfer reclaimed
lands. Now in this case, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with
AMARI, a private corporation. Under the Joint Venture Agreement between
AMARI and PEA, several hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the
Freedom Islands and several portions of submerged areas of Manila Bay
were going to be transferred to AMARI.
ISSUE: Whether the Public Estate Authority can transfer the Freedom
Islands and several portions of submerged areas of Manila Bay to AMARI.
RULING: NO. 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. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila
Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain until

12 | P a g e
classified as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition and declared
no longer needed for public service.
In their present state, there can be no dispute that these submerged areas
form part of the public domain, and are inalienable and outside the
commerce of man. Until reclaimed from the sea, these submerged areas
are, under the Constitution, "waters x x x owned by the State," forming
part of the public domain and consequently inalienable. Only when
actually reclaimed from the sea can these submerged areas be classified
as public agricultural lands, which under the Constitution are the only
natural resources that the State may alienate. Once reclaimed and
transformed into public agricultural lands, the government may then
officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable lands open to
disposition. Thereafter, the government may declare these lands no longer
needed for public service. Only then can these reclaimed lands be
considered alienable or disposable lands of the public domain and within
the commerce of man.

BUREAU OF FORESTRY V. C.A, G.R. NO. L-37995

FACTS: Mercedes Diago filed an application for registration on July 11,
1961 over four (4) parcels of land located in Buenavista, Iloilo containing
an approximate area of 30.5943 hectares. Mercedes Diago claims that she
occupied said parcels of land having bought them from the testate estate
of the late Jose Ma. Nava who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands in turn
from Canuto Gustilo on June 21, 1934. Out of the 30.5943 hectares
applied for registration under the Torrens System, 11.1863 hectares are
coconut lands, the rest, consisting of 19.4080 hectares is now the center
of controversy.
The Director of Lands opposed the application on the ground that neither
the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest have sufficient title over the
lands applied for, which could be registered under the Torrens systems,
and that they have never been in open, continuous and exclusive
possession of the said lands for at least 30 years prior to the filing of the
application.
The Director of Forestry on the other hand anchored his opposition on the
ground that certain specific portions of the lands subject matter of the
application, with an area of approximately 194,080 square meters are
mangrove swamps and are within Timberland Block "B " L.C. Project No.
38, L.C. Map No. 1971 of Buenavista, Iloilo. Further, the said forest land

13 | P a g e
had been declared and certified as such by the Director of the Bureau of
Forestry on February 18, 1956, several years before the original applicant
of the lands for registration. On April 6, 1966, the trial court rendered its
decision ordering the registration of the four (4) parcels of land in the name
of respondent, Filomeno Gallo, who purchased parcels of land from
Mercedes Diago.
Petitioners then appealed from said decision to the respondent Court of
Appeals, however, the respondent court affirmed the decision of the Court
of First Instance of Iloilo. Thus, petitioners filed for review on certiorari,
which seeks to annul and set aside the Decision.
Respondent court in affirming the decision of the Iloilo trial court ruled
that although the controverted portion of 19.4080 hectares are mangrove
and nipa swamps within Timberland Block "B," L.C. Project No. 38, it
cannot be considered part of the public forest not susceptible of private
ownership since petitioners failed to submit convincing proof that these
lands are more valuable for forestry than for agricultural purposes, and
the presumption is that these are agricultural lands. Respondent court
further asserts that since the government has not taken any positive step
to dislodge the occupants from their holdings which have passed from one
to another by inheritance or by purchase, the title is obtained by
prescription.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A
PUBLIC LAND IS AGRICULTURAL OR A FOREST LAND RESTS UPON THE
COURTS.
HELD: NO. As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,
which was lifted from Act No. 2874, the classification or reclassification of
public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a
prerogative of the Executive Department of the government and not of the
courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it
is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public
domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the
Government, through the Office of the President.
The controversial area is within a timberland block as classification of the
municipality and certified to by the Director of Forestry on February 18,
1956 as lands needed for forest purposes and hence they are portions of
the public domain which cannot be the subject of registration proceedings.
Clearly the land is public land and there is no need for the Director of
Forestry to submit to the court convincing proofs that the land in dispute
is not more valuable for agriculture than for forest purposes, as there was

14 | P a g e
no question of whether the land is forest land or not. Be it remembered
that said forest land had been declared and certified as such by the
Director of the Bureau of Forestry on February 18, 1956, several
years before the original applicant of the lands for registration Mercedes
Diago, filed it on July 11, 1961.
Furthermore, private respondents Cannot claim to have obtained their title
by prescription inasmuch as the application filed by them necessarily
implied an admission that the portions applied for are part of the public
domain which cannot be acquired by prescription, unless the law
expressly permits it. It is a rule of law that possession of forest lands,
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.

DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. COURT OF APPEALS, IBARRA BISNAR and

AMELIA BISNAR, G.R. No. 83609
FACTS: The Court of First Instance of Capiz granted the respondent’s
application for confirmation and registration of their title to two (2) parcels
of land situated in barrio Gen. Hizon, Municipality of President Roxas,
Province of Capiz. The applicants claimed to be the owners and that they
inherited in fee simple the Lots 866 and 870 of the Pilar Cadastre Plan AP-
06-000869, respectively containing an area of 28 hectares (284,424 sq.
m.) and 34 hectares (345,385 sq. m).
On December 16,1976, the Director of Lands and the Director of the
Bureau of Forest Development, opposed the application on the grounds
that:
1. Neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest possess
sufficient title to acquire ownership in fee simple of the land or lots applied
for, the same not having been acquired by any of the various types of title
issued by the Spanish Government, such as, (1) 'titulo real' or royal grant,
(2) the 'concession especial' or special grant, (3) the 'composicion con el
estado titulo' or adjustment title, (4) the 'titulo de compra 'or title by
purchase, and (5) the 'informacion possessoria' or possessory information
under the Royal Decree of 13 February 1894, or any other recognized mode
of acquisition of title over realty under pertinent applicable laws.
2. Neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the land in question for at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding
the filing of the application.

15 | P a g e
3. The properties in question are a portion of the public domain (Forest
Land) belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, not subject to private
appropriation.
However, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Capiz, stating that applicants and their predecessors- in-
interest have been in open, public, continuous, peaceful and adverse
possession of the subject parcels of land under bona fide claims of
ownership for more than eighty (80) years (not only 30) prior to the filing
of the application for registration, introduced improvements on the lands
by planting coconuts, bamboos and other plants, and converted a part of
the land into productive fishponds. Hence, the petitioners seek a review of
the decision.
ISSUE: Whether the court has power and jurisdiction to register the lots
in question.
HELD: NO. It bears emphasizing that a positive act of the government is
needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and to convert it into
alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. Unless and
until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to
that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of
the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
Thus, possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private
ownership. A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral
court to register under the Torrens System.

HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY,

G.R. No. L-27873
FACTS: Roque Borre and Melquiades Borre, filed an application for
registration over the parcel of land known as Lot No. 885 of the Cadastral
Survey of Pilar, Capiz, and has an area of 645,703 square meters.
In due time, the heirs of Jose Amunategui, petitioners filed an opposition
to the application of Roque and Melquiades Borre, and at the same time,
they prayed that the title to a portion of Lot No. 885 of Pilar Cadastre
containing 527,747 square meters be confirmed and registered in the
names of said Heirs. The Director of Forestry, through the Provincial Fiscal
of Capiz, also filed an opposition to the application for registration of title
claiming that the land was mangrove swamp which was still classified as
forest land and part of the public domain. Another oppositor, Emeterio

16 | P a g e
Bereber filed his opposition insofar as a portion of Lot No. 885 containing
117,956 square meters was concerned and prayed that title to said portion
be confirmed and registered in his name. During the progress of the trial,
Roque Borre sold whatever rights and interests he may have on Lot No.
885 to Angel Alpasan. The latter also filed an opposition, claiming that he
is entitled to have said lot registered in his name. After trial, the Court of
First Instance of Capiz adjudicated 117,956 square meters to Emeterio
Bereber and the rest of the land containing 527,747 square meters was
adjudicated in the proportion of 5/6 share to Angel Alpasan and 1/6 share
to Melquiades Borre.
Only the Heirs of Jose Amunategui and the Director of Forestry filed their
respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. In its decision, the Court of
Appeals reversed the application as well as all the oppositions with the
exception of that of the Director of Forestry which is hereby sustained are
dismissed. Thus, Roque Borre and Encarnacion Delfin, and the heirs of
Jose Amuntegui filed a review on certiorari.
The Heirs of Jose Amunategui maintain that Lot No. 885 cannot be
classified as forest land because it is not thickly forested but is a
"mangrove swamp." Although conceding that a "mangrove swamp" is
included in the classification of forest land in accordance with Section
1820 of the Revised Administrative Code, the petitioners argue that no big
trees classified in Section 1821 of said Code as first, second and third
groups are found on the land in question. Furthermore, they contend that
Lot 885, even if it is a mangrove swamp, is still subject to land registration
proceedings because the property had been in actual possession of private
persons for many years, and therefore, said land was already "private land"
better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes
and not required by the public interests to be kept under forest
classification.
ISSUE: Whether Lot. No. 885 is classified as forest land.

HELD: YES. A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain
does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may
have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land
may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin
cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains
or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa
palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be
classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature

17 | P a g e
or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually
looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an
official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply. The fact that no trees enumerated in Section
1821 of the Revised Administrative Code are found in Lot No. 885 does not
divest such land of its being classified as forest land, much less as land of
the public domain.
The Court ruled that possession of forest lands, no matter how long,
cannot ripen into private ownership. It bears emphasizing that a positive
act of Government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest
and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other
purposes.

We, therefore, affirm the finding that the disputed property Lot No. 885 is
part of the public domain, classified as public forest land. There is no need
for us to pass upon the other issues raised by petitioners Roque Borre and
Encarnacion Delfin, as such issues are rendered moot by this finding.

18 | P a g e
 SPECIFIC MODES OF DISPOSITION OF
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS
A). FOR HOMESTEAD SETTELMENT
 governed by Chapter IV (Homesteads) of the Public Land Act
What is a Homestead Patent?
- a mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon continuous
and personal occupancy of the area as home including
cultivation and improvement of the land (Land Management
Bureau, 2020).
Who are qualified to apply?
All citizens of the Philippines are qualified to apply; over 18 years
old or head of the family and NOT an owner of more than 12 hectares of
land pursuant to the 1987 Constitution.
NOTE: Applicant must have:
 cultivated and improved one-fifth of the land continuously since the
approval of the application; and
 resided for at least one year in the municipality where the land is
located, or in an adjacent municipality to the same; and then
 upon payment of the required fee, he shall be entitled to a patent.
What are the Requirements (Legal) Needed?
 Application fee of P50.00;
 Entry fee of P5.00;
 Final fee of P5.00;
 Approved plan and technical description of the land applied for;
 Actual occupation and residence by the applicant;
Steps leading to the issuance of a Homestead patent:
 Filing of application;
 Preliminary Investigation;
 Approval of application;
 Filing of final proof which consists of two (2) parts;
o Notice of intention to make Final Proof which is posted for 30
days.

19 | P a g e
 o Testimony of the homesteader corroborated by two (2)
witnesses mentioned in the notice. The Final Proof is filed not
earlier than 1 year after the approval of the application but
within 5 years from the said date.
 Confirmatory Final Investigation;
 Order of Issuance of Patent;
 Preparation of patent using Judicial Form No. 67 and 67-D and the
technical description duly inscribed at the back thereof;
 Transmittal of the Homestead patent to the Register of Deeds
concerned.
Who is/are the Signing and Approving Authority/ies?
For Homestead and Free Patents:
 Up to 5 hectares (has.) – PENRO (Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Office)
 More than 5 has. to 10 has. – RED (Regional Executive Director)
 More than 10 has. - DENR Secretary
Effect of Compliance with legal requirements
 Homesteader acquires a vested interest and is the equitable owner
of the land.
 Even without a patent, a perfected homestead is a property right in
the fullest sense and is unaffected by the paramount title to the land
still in government.
 The land may be conveyed or inherited - no subsequent law can
deprive the homesteader of this vested right.
 Homesteader acquires not only a right to a grant, but also a grant of
the government.
 Upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title
becomes irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a
registration proceeding – i.e. certificate is entitled to all the
safeguards of a verifiable Torrens title.
Transfer of rights
 If after the approval of the application and before the patent is
issued, the applicant has complied with all the requirements of the
law but cannot continue with his homestead without fault on his
part and there is a bona fide purchaser for the rights and
improvements of the applicant on the land and conveyance is not
made for purposes of speculation, the applicant with the previous

20 | P a g e
 approval of the Director of Lands, may transfer his rights to the land
and improvements to any person legally qualified to apply for a
homestead. Immediately after transfer, the purchaser shall file a
homestead application to the land. Purchaser succeeds original
homesteader in his rights and obligations beginning with the date of
approval of his application.
 Any person who transferred his rights may not apply again for a new
homestead.
 Every transfer made without the approval of the Director of Lands is
void and results in cancellation of entry and refusal of the patent.
NOTE: A Land Registration court cannot be divested of jurisdiction by
subsequent issuance of a homestead patent over the same land subject of
registration.
B). BY SALE
 governed by Chapter V (Sale) of the Public Land Act
Who are qualified to apply?
Any citizen of the Philippines of lawful age or the head of a family
may purchase any tract of public agricultural land NOT to exceed 12
hectares.
How may an applicant acquire public agricultural land thru sale?
The public agricultural land is sold through sealed bidding. The land
is awarded to the highest bidder, but the applicant may equal the highest
bid. The purchase price can be paid in full upon the making of the award
or in not more than 10 annual installments from the date of the award.
NOTE: It is required that the purchaser shall:

 have not less than one-fifth of the land cultivated within five years
from the date of the award; and
 before the issuing of the patent, show actual occupancy, cultivation,
and improvement of at least one-fifth of the land until the date of
final payment.
Transfer of rights
 After the cultivation of the land has begun, the purchaser, with
approval of the DENR Secretary, may convey or encumber his rights
to any person, corporation, or association legally qualified under the
Act to purchase public agricultural lands, provided:

21 | P a g e
 o the conveyance or encumbrance does not affect any right or
interest of the government in the land; and
o the transferee is not delinquent in the payment of any
installment due and payable.
NOTE:
 Any sale and encumbrance made without previous approval of the
Secretary is void and produces the effect of:
o annulling the acquisition;
o reverting the property and all rights to the State; and
o all payments on the purchase price made to the government
is forfeited.
 After the sale has been approved, the vendor shall not lose his right
to acquire public agricultural lands under the provisions of the Act,
provided he has the necessary qualifications.
C). BY LEASE
 governed by Chapter VI (Lease) of the Public Land Act
Who are qualified to apply?
1. Any citizen of the Philippines of lawful age
- may lease NOT more than 500 hectares
- may acquire NOT more than 12 hectares by purchase, homestead,
or grant

2. any corporation or association (of which, at least six per centum of the
capital stock or of any interest in said capital stock belongs wholly to
citizens of the Philippines).
Sec. 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution – private corporations may
lease alienable lands of the public domain for a period NOT exceeding 25
years, renewable for NOT more than 25 years, and NOT to exceed 1,000
hectares.
NOTE:

 (GR) Inherent and essential condition of the lease: Lessee shall

have NOT less than one-third of the land broken and cultivated
within five years after the date of approval of the lease.
o (XPN) If land leased is devoted to pasture, it is sufficient
compliance with the above condition if lessee graze on the land

22 | P a g e
 as many heads of cattle as will occupy at least one half of the
entire area at the rate of one head per hectare.
D). BY CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE TITLE

The confirmation of imperfect or incomplete may be done in two ways.

1. Judicial Legalization
Judicial Legalization Covers Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act

Essential Requisites of Judicial Legalization

a. The applicant must be a Filipino Citizen

- Our Constitution prohibits foreigners to own private lands since
all lands in our country are reserved for Filipinos only.

b. He must have by himself, or through his predecessor in interest

possessed and occupied and alienable and disposable agricultural
portion of the public domain.

Important Concepts of This Requisite:

b. 1. The law requires both possession and occupation
- This may be actual possession or occupation, or constructive possession
that provides for non-residence, but with the desire to come back as soon
as practicable.

b. 2. Ownership based on adverse possession

General Rule: No title or right to, or equity in, any lands of the public
domain may be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession or
occupancy except as expressly provided by law.

Exception: Public Land Act (CA No. 141) recognizes the ownership based
on adverse possession and under the right of acquisition governed by
judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. The applicant must
prove that (1) the land is alienable public land and (2) his possession has
been exercised in the manner and for the period prescribed by law or since
June 12, 1945.

*Registration under the act presumes that the land was originally public
agricultural land but because of adverse possession since June 12, 1945,
the land has become private.

b. 3. Land must be alienable and disposable at the time the application for
confirmation is filed

23 | P a g e
- Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles applies exclusively
to alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. Lands
classified as forest or timber lands, mineral lands and national parks are
excluded therefore.

*The rule is different where the land is not registrable. A land is not capable
of private ownership unless they are classified and considered alienable
and disposable. In the absence of that classification, the land remains
unclassified public land until released and opened for disposition.

* The following are the non-registrable properties:

- property of public domain (Article 420 of the Civil Code)
- forest lands
- watersheds
- mangroves or swamps
- mineral lands
- national parks and protected areas
- military or naval reservation
- foreshore lands and reclaimed lands
- submerged areas
- lakes
- navigable rivers
- reservations for public and semi-public purposes

* Where a subject lot is released as alienable and disposable only at a

specific date, the possession made prior to that year should be excluded
from the computation of the period of year of possession.

- This possession can never ripen to ownership and unless the land has
been classified as alienable and disposable, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title shall not apply.

* It is not necessary that the land be first classified as alienable and

disposable before the applicant’s possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership could start. What the law requires is that the property sought
to be registered is already alienable and disposable at the time of the
application for registration of title is filed.

* If the state, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it
proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the
presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property. If the property has already been classified as A and D, the state
has the intention to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.

24 | P a g e
c. Such possession and occupation must have been open, continuous,
exclusive, notorious and in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945

c. 1. Concept of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious

- The possession and occupation, whether actual or constructive, must be
without interruption, except when prevented by force majeure or
circumstances beyond human control, or not of intermittent character
while it continues.

c. 2. Period of Possession
- Pursuant to RA No. 1942, the required possession was at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the application.

- PD 1073 repealed RA No. 194. PD 1073 now requires possession since

June 12, 1945 or earlier.

PD 1073 also:
a. extended the period for filing of applications for judicial confirmation of
imperfect titles to December 31, 1987;

b. limited the area of the land applied for to 144 hectares;

c. repealed Section 48(b) on judicial confirmation of incomplete titles to

public land based on unperfected Spanish grants;

d. amended Section 48(b) and (c) in the sense that these provisions shall
apply only to alienable and disposable lands of public domain which have
been in open, continuous and exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessors in
interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12,
1945

- Only applications for registration filed prior to January 23, 1977 may
invoke RA 1942.

d. The application must be filed with the proper court

- Applications for registration shall be heard in the RTC in the same
manner and shall be subject to the same procedure as established in
Section 50 of PD 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.

- The burden of proof rests on the applicant

25 | P a g e
If these four conditions are met, the possessor may acquire the land
by operation of law, a right to grant a government grant without the
necessity of a certificate of title being issued.

*Where the applicant has acquired a right to a governmental grant,

application is a mere formality.
- The lack of which do not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would
be evidence by the patent and the Torrens title to be issue upon the
strength of said patent.
- For all legal intents and purposes, the land is segregated from public
domain because the beneficiary is conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be
entitled a certificate of title.

*Vested rights cannot be impaired by subsequent law.

- This is against the due process clause of the Constitution.
- a right is vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has
become the property of a person as a present interest. It has become fixed
and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy.

*RA 9176 has

a. extended the period to file an application for judicial confirmation
of imperfect title to December 31, 2020

b. further limiting the area applied for to 12 hectares

c. providing that all pending applications filed before the effectivity

of the Amendatory Act shall be treated as having been filed in accordance
with the provisions thereof.

2. Administrative Legalization (Free Patents)

Requisites for administrative legalization

a. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines
- Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, a natural – born
Filipino citizen is
a. 1. one who does not have to perform any act to acquire his Philippine
citizenship; and
a. 2. those who were born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

b. Not the owner of more than 12 hectares

- Only lands limited to 12 hectares may be subject to administrative
legalization. Lands covering more than 12 hectares are disqualified.

26 | P a g e
c. Has continuously occupied and cultivated either by himself and
or his predecessor in interest for at least 30 years prior to the
effectivity of the amendatory act
- This may be actual possession or occupation, or constructive possession
that provides for non-residence, but with the desire to come back as soon
as practicable. The possession and occupation, whether actual or
constructive, must be without interruption, except when prevented
by force majeure or circumstances beyond human control, or not of
intermittent character while it continues.

d. Subject land must be an agricultural land

- Forest or timber lands, mineral lands and lands considered as national
parks are excluded from the application of administrative legalization.

e. Real estate tax must be paid

- The applicant must have paid the assessed value of the land during his
or her occupancy or bona fide claim of ownership.
* Real property tax is a kind of tax levied by the local government on
properties which includes land, buildings, improvements on the land
and/or the building and machinery and should be paid by property
owners.

f. Land not occupied by any other person

- The applicant must be the actual occupant. The applicant herself or
himself, or his or her predecessor-in-interest, is occupying, living in,
inhabiting or staying in a structure, in the concept of an owner. The
primary purpose of which is to serve as the residence of such person,
situated on the parcel of residential land subject of the free patent
application.

g. Prescriptive period of 30 years, under a bona fide claim of

ownership
- The occupancy or the bona fide claim of ownership must be at least 30
years prior to the effectivity of this Amendatory Act.

* Bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership

- It is the claim for the parcel subject of the application that is legally
adequate as proof of possession and as acceptable to the community to
separate that particular parcel as being owned by the applicant to the
exclusion of others.
- It means that the applicant holds the properly by virtue of or through
any of the modes of acquisition recognized by the Civil Code.

27 | P a g e
- It also refers to a state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the
applicant, done with honest intention to abstain from taking an
unconscionable or unscrupulous advantage or another.

RA No. 10023 vs. RA No. 11231

a. RA No. 10023 or the Free Patent Act

- the act authorizing the issuance of free patents to residential lands

1. Who are qualified to apply?

- Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a residential land may
apply for a Free Patent Title under this Act provided that the land applied
for is not needed for public service and/or public use.

a. In highly urbanized cities, the land should not exceed two hundred (200)
square meters;

b. In other cities, it should not exceed five hundred (500) square meters;
c. In first class and second class municipalities, it should not exceed seven
hundred fifty (750) square meters;

d. In all other municipalities, it should not exceed one thousand (1,000)

square meters;
- An applicant has, either by himself or through his predecessor-in-
interest, actually resided on and continuously possessed and occupied,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, the land applied for
at least ten (10) years and has complied with the requirements prescribed
above.

2. What are covered by this Act?

- This Act covers:
a. all lands that are zoned as residential areas, including townsites
as defined under the Public Land Act; Provided, that none of the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 705 shall be violated.

b. zoned residential areas located inside a delisted military

reservation or abandoned military camp, and those of local
government units (LGUs) or town sites which preceded Republic Act
No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
law

3. Provision on Special Patents

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and subject to private
rights, if any, public land actually occupied and used for public schools,

28 | P a g e
municipal halls, public plazas or parks and other government institutions
for public use or purpose may be issued special patents under the name
of the national agency or LGU concerned: Provided, That all lands titled
under this section shall not be disposed of unless sanctioned by Congress
if owned by the national agency or sanctioned by the Sanggunian
concerned through an approved ordinance if owned by the LGU.

4. Removal of Restrictions
The restrictions regarding encumbrances, conveyances, transfers or
dispositions imposed in Sections 118, 119,121, 122 and 123 of Chapter
XII, Title VI of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended, shall not apply to
patents issued under this Act.

5. Period for Application.

- All applications shall be filed immediately after the effectivity of
this Act before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) of the DENR.

b. RA No. 11231 or the Agricultural Free Patent Reform Act

- an act which removed the restrictions imposed on the registration,
acquisition, encumbrance, alienation, transfer and conveyance of land
covered by Free Patents Under Sections 118, 119 and 121 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141.

1. Purpose of this Act

a. to remove the restrictions on free patents to allow the efficient and
effective utilization of these lands in order to contribute to wealth creation,
entrepreneurship, and economic development.
b. to consider agricultural free patent as title in fee simple

2. What is covered by this act

- Agricultural public lands alienated or disposed in favor of qualified public
land applicants under Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended. These lands shall not be subject to restrictions imposed under
Sections 118, 119 and 121 thereof regarding acquisitions, encumbrances,
conveyances, transfers, or dispositions.

c. What is common in RA 10023 and RA 11231?

- The removal of the restrictions regarding encumbrances,
conveyances, transfers or dispositions imposed in Sections 118, 119,121,
122 and 123 of Chapter XII, Title VI of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as
amended.

29 | P a g e
E). NAVY OFFICER’S VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC v. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 177168, August 3, 2015
FACTS: A Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) of a land in Taguig was issued to
Navy Officers’ Village Association, Inc (NOVAI). The property was
previously a part of a larger parcel of land, which the TCT is under the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. The then Pres. Garcia issued
Proclamation No. 423 which reserves for military purposes certain parcels
of the public domain situated in Pasig, Taguig, Paranaque, Rizal, and
Pasay City. Then Pres. Macapagal issued Proclamation No. 461 which
excluded Fort McKinley a certain portion of land situated in the provinces
abovementioned and declared them as AFP Officers’ Village to be disposed
of. However, this area was subsequently reserved for veterans’
rehabilitation, Medicare, and training center sites.

The property became the subject of deed of sale between the Republic and
NOVAI to which the TCT was registered in favor of NOVAI. The Republic
then sought to cancel NOVAI’s title on the ground that the property was
still part of the military reservation so it is an inalienable land of the public
domain and cannot be the subject of sale.
ISSUE: Whether the land is already alienable and disposable and hence,
can be registered under NOVAI.

HELD: No, the property remains a part of the public domain. NOVAI failed
to prove that the property was not intended for public or quasi-public use
or purpose. Under Section 6 of C.A. No. 141, the President of the Republic
of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, may, from time to time, classify lands
of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral
lands, and transfer these lands from one class to another for purposes of
their administration and disposition.

In a limited sense, parcels of land classified as reservations for public or

quasi-public uses under Section 9 (d) of C.A. No. 141 are still non-alienable
and non-disposable, even though they are, by the general classification
under Section 6, alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. By
specific declaration under Section 88, in relation with Section 8, these
lands classified as reservations are non-alienable and non-disposable.

Also, under Article 420 of the Civil Code, “property of the public dominion
as those which are intended for public use or, while not intended for public
use, belong to the State and are intended for some public service”. In this
case, the property was classified as military reservation thus, remained to
be property of the public dominion until withdrawn from the public use

30 | P a g e
for which they have been reserved, by act of Congress or by proclamation
of the President. Since there was no positive act from the government, the
property had to retain its inalienable and non-disposable character.
Therefore, the subject property cannot be the subject of sale otherwise, the
sale is void for being contrary to law.

F). REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DAYAOEN, G.R. No. 200773,

July 8, 2015

The Petitioner’s (Republic) Argument:

The applicants failed to satisfy the legal requirements relative to:
(1) the proof of the alienability of the subject land; and
(2) the continuous, open, exclusive and notorious possession of the
lands applied for since June 12, 1945 or earlier as required under
Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.

The Respondents' (Angeline Dayaoen, Agustina Taule and Lawana

Batcagan) Arguments:
1. The annotations and certifications in the approved survey plan
substantially comply with the legal requirement for a certification as to
the alienability of the subject land.
2. They have satisfactorily proved their continuous, open, exclusive and
notorious possession of the subject land; that their predecessors-in-
interest occupied the land as early as during the Japanese occupation, or
clearly prior to June 12, 1945; and that petitioner's evidence should not
be believed for being biased.

Facts of the case:

Angeline Dayaoen, Agustina Taule and Lawana Batcagan filed an
Application for Registration of three parcels of land located in Barangay
Tabangaoen, La Trinidad, Benguet, described as Lots 1, 6 and 7. The
subject parcels of land were originally owned and possessed since pre-war
time by Antonio Pablo, the grandfather of Dado Pablo, husband of
Angeline. But was given to Angeline and Dado as a wedding gift in 1963.
From that time on, they continuously occupied and possessed the
properties.

In 1976 and 1977, Angeline sold Lots 6 and 7 to Agustina and Lawana.
Since 12 June 1945, Angeline and their predecessor-in-interest have been
in public, open, exclusive, uninterrupted and continuous possession
thereof in the concept of an owner.
Angeline, Agustina and Lawana declared the questioned properties for
taxation purposes.

31 | P a g e
On the scheduled initial hearing, Angeline, Agustina and Lawana adduced
pieces of documentary evidence to comply with the jurisdictional
requirements of notices, posting and publication. Angeline testified on the
continuous, open, public and exclusive possession of the lands in dispute.

Trial proceeded. The court granted their application for registration on

November 6, 2007. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for
reconsideration but was denied by the court. The court rendered the
assailed Amended Decision finding appellees to have the registrable title
over the subject properties. The case was forwarded to the CA. The CA
affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, this case to the Supreme Court.

Issues of the case

1. Whether the application for registration of the 3 subject lots be granted

2. Whether it was sufficiently shown that the applicants were in an open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation and possession by
themselves and their predecessors-in-interest since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.

Rulings of the Case:

A. The RTC’s Ruling: The RTC granted the application for registration.
Basis of the RTC’s decision:
The Regalian doctrine
- An Applicant must overcome the presumption that the lots sought to be
registered form part of the public domain rests by proving the same
through facts and evidence.

The court held that the following established facts as borne out by
competent, reliable, concrete, and undisputed evidence are sufficient proof
to overcome the presumption that the lots sought to be registered form
part of the public domain shown the applicants’ adverse, continuous,
open, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and exclusive possession and
occupation in concept of owners.

a. Since pre-war Antonio Pablo, had been in possession and occupation of

the land which is corroborated by evidence that there had already been an
old hut thereon before it was given as a gift where the spouses stayed after
their marriage and there were already on the land some fruit trees, and
some other plants, which he had planted thereon. This anterior possession
and occupation of Antonio Pablo of the land since pre-war should be
tacked to the possession and occupation of applicant Angeline. This

32 | P a g e
proved Angeline’s possession and occupation of the land under bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership for more than thirty (30) years, including
the anterior possession and occupation of Antonio Pablo, when P.D. 1073
amended Sec. 48(b) if C.A. 141, as amended by R.A. 1942.

b. The respondents’ application for judicial confirmation of their imperfect

title which was filed in 1970 and that the land registration court rendered
its decision confirming their long-continued possession of the lands here
involved in 1974, that is, during the time when Section 48(c) was in legal
effect.

c. The categorical statement of facts in the tracing cloth of the approved

survey plan in conjunction which was approved by the Regional Director
of DENR

d. Proclamation No. 209, positive act of the government through

proclamation, which was issued by then President Ramon Magsaysay on
October 20, 1955 declaring the parcel or parcels of land situated in the
Municipality of La Trinidad, Sub-province of Benguet, Mountain Province,
open to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act. Lots 1, 6
and 7 is within the Proclamation No. 209 (it is outside any military or civil
reservations).

e. The court finds it significant that the State has not adduced any
evidence, in spite of the fact that it has all the records, resources, and
power in its command, to show that the lots subject of the present
application is not alienable and disposable part of the public domain.

f. The tax declaration of Angeline and religious payment of real property

taxes lend strong corroboration to the evidence of the applicants. It is the
established jurisprudence that tax declarations become strong evidence of
ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual
possession of the property.

B. The Court of Appeals’ Ruling: CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Basis of the CA’s Decision:
Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 which requires that:
(1) the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the
public domain;
(2) the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in continuous, open, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation, and;
(3) such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.

33 | P a g e
a. Angeline was able to prove by convincing evidence that they and their
predecessor-in-interest have been in continuous, open, exclusive and
notorious possession over the subject properties since 12 June 1945 or
earlier. She had personal knowledge that her predecessor-in-interest,
Antonio, owned and possessed them from pre-war time. She and her
husband Dado, tilled and cultivated the lands in question since 1963 when
it was given to them by Antonio as a wedding gift.

b. The applicants declared the subject properties for taxation purposes not
only one’s sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and
announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested
parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the
Government Although tax declarations and realty tax payment of property
are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good
indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at
least constructive possession. Such an act strengthens one’s bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership.

c. The subject properties are no longer part of public domain. Their private
character is declared in the annotation of the survey plan approved by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the Bureau
of Lands, Regional Office No. 1, San Fernando, La Union.

d. Lot A, in the tracing cloth of the approved survey plan is one of the three
(3) lots described in the afore cited Presidential Proclamation No. 209
opened to "disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act."

C. The Supreme Court’s Ruling:

The SC denied the application for registration because the applicants failed
to prove that the lots in subject is alienable and disposable.

1. The applicants failed to prove that the three lots subject to this
controversy is alienable and disposable.

a. The annotation in the tracing cloth of the approved survey plan and the
certifications therein do not constitute substantial compliance with the
legal requirement on presentation of a certificate of land classification
status or any other proof that the subject land is alienable and disposable.

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the
State whose classification and reclassification rest upon the prerogative of
the Executive Department.

34 | P a g e
In 1955 the President – through Presidential Proclamation No. 209 –
declared particular lands in Baguio City as alienable and disposable,
which may have been re-classified by the President thereafter.

This is precisely the reason why an applicant for registration of title based
on an executive proclamation is required to present evidence on the
alienable and disposable character of the land applied for, such as a
certificate of land classification status from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which only the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) and the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) are authorized to
issue under DENR Administrative Order No. 38, series of 1990 (DAO 38).
In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the subject
lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the Advance Plan
stating in effect that the said properties are alienable and disposable which
is hardly the kind of proof required by law.

b. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is

alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of
the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order,
an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators, and a legislative actor statute. The applicant may also secure
a certification from the Government that the lands applied for are alienable
and disposable.

In the case at bar, while the Advance Plan bearing the notation was
certified by the Lands Management Services of the DENR, the certification
refers only to the technical correctness of the survey plotted in the said
plan and has nothing to do whatsoever with the nature and character of
the property surveyed. The applicants failed to submit a certification from
the proper government agency to prove that the lands subject for
registration are indeed alienable and disposable.

c. In Fortuna v. Republic, it was held that an applicant for registration of

title acquired through a public land grant must present incontrovertible
evidence that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable
by establishing the existence of a positive act of the government, such as
a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a
legislative act or a statute.

Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the

covered properties’ alienable and disposable character. These notations

35 | P a g e
only establish that the land subject of the application for registration falls
within the approved alienable and disposable area per verification
through survey by the proper government office. The applicant, however,
must also present a copy of the original classification of the land into
alienable and disposable land, as declared by the DENR Secretary or as
proclaimed by the President.

d. In Republic v. Heirs of Juan Fabio, the Court ruled that the applicant
for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved
the land classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for
registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey
by the PENRO or CENRO. The applicant must present a copy of the original
classification of the land into alienable and disposable, as declared by the
DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed by the President.

Here, the survey plan and the DENR-CENRO certification are not proof
that the President or the DENR Secretary has reclassified and released the
public land as alienable and disposable. The offices that prepared these
documents are not the official repositories or legal custodian of the
issuances of the President or the DENR Secretary declaring the public land
as alienable and disposable.

f. In Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Republic, it was held that the burden of

proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of
the public domain is on the person applying for registration, who must
prove that the properties subject of the application is alienable and
disposable. Even the notations on the survey plans submitted by the
petitioner cannot be admitted as evidence of the subject properties'
alienability and disposability. Such notations do not constitute
incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the subject
properties remain part of the inalienable public domain.

Thus, while judicial notice of Presidential Proclamation No. 209 may be

taken, the DENR certificate of land classification status or any other proof
of the alienable and disposable character of the land may not be dispensed
with, because it provides a more recent appraisal of the classification of
the land as alienable and disposable, or that the land has not been re-
classified in the meantime.

2. The applicants had continuous, open, exclusive and notorious

possession of the lots in question.

36 | P a g e
It has been well established that since pre-war Antonio Pablo had been in
possession and occupation of the land which is corroborated by evidence
that when the land was verbally given to applicant Angeline and Dado as
a wedding gift, the old man Antonio Pablo had already an old hut thereon
where the spouses stayed after their marriage, and there were already on
the land some fruit trees, and some other plants, consisting of guavas and
avocados already bearing fruits, which he had planted thereon. The
anterior possession and occupation of Antonio Pablo of the land since pre-
war should be tacked to the possession and occupation of applicant
Angeline, and the latter's possession and occupation, in turn, is tacked
to the present possession and occupation of her co-applicants, who
acquired titles from her.

37 | P a g e
 EFFECT OF VOID CONVEYANCE
Sec 124 of the Public Land Act
 Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contract
made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of Sec 118,
120, 121, 122, and 123 shall be unlawful and null and void from its
execution and shall produce the following effects:
 Annulling and cancelling the grant, title, patent, or permit
originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or
presumptively; and
 Cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to
the State.
Where the parties to a sale of a portion of the public domain covered by
homestead patent have been proven to be guilty of having effected the
transaction with knowledge of the cause of its invalidity, the sale is null
and void and shall cause the reversion of the property to the State.
EXCEPTION:
Rule on Pari Delicto not applicable
The principle of in pari delicto is not applicable to cases when its
application would run counter to an avowed public fundamental policy or
to public interest.
Example: When the subject of the transaction is a piece of public land, an
heir should not be prevented from reacquiring it because it was given by
law to her family for her home and cultivation and this is the policy on
which the homestead law is predicted.
 Whether as a result of the void sale the land reverted to the State is a
point between the State and the grantee of the homestead and his
heirs. In any event, the plaintiff’s right to the possession and use of
the property can hardly be disputed while the government doesn’t
take steps to assert its title to the homestead.
 Reversion isn’t automatic. As long as the government has not chosen
to act, the rights of the patentee stand and must be recognized in the
courts of law.

38 | P a g e
REFERENCES

Agcaoili, O. D. (2016). Law on natural resources and rules of procedure for

environmental cases. Manila, Philippines: Published & distributed by
Rex Book Store.

ChanRobles & Associates Law Firm. (2020). Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence. Retrieved September 02, 2020, from
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015augustdecisions.php?id=
659

Land Management Bureau. (2020). Homestead Patent. Retrieved

September 02, 2020 from https://lmb.gov.ph/index.php/87program
s-and-projects/ii-land-disposition/11-ld-homestead-patent

39 | P a g e