SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218418. November 8, 2017.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR, REGION IV,
MANILA, petitioner, vs. THE HEIRS OF MEYNARDO CABRERA,
as herein represented by MEYNARDO CABRERA, JR. and
ALMA RODRIGUEZ CABRERA, THE HEIRS OF CONSOLACION
DIMACULANGAN CABRERA, as herein represented by
ALEXANDER CABRERA, MANIBI CABRERA, MILAGROS
CABRERA GARA, AND RAUL CABRERA, JACKSON CINCO DY,
LORETA AGBAYANI, GLORIA SORIANO, CRIS CALMA, NORA
LIWANAG and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ORIENTAL
MINDORO, respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) filed under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court against the Decision 2 dated July 18, 2014 (Assailed
Decision) and Resolution 3 dated May 20, 2015 (Assailed Resolution) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 98120 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) Eleventh Division
and Special Former Eleventh Division, respectively.
The Assailed Decision and Resolution stem from an appeal from the
Decision 4 dated December 5, 2005 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 43 (RTC) in Civil Case No. C-358, dismissing
the complaint for cancellation of free patent and reversion filed by the
Republic of the Philippines (Republic) against the Heirs of Meynardo Cabrera
(Heirs of Meynardo), the Heirs of Consolacion Dimaculangan Cabrera (Heirs
of Consolacion), Jackson Cinco Dy (Dy), Loreta Agbayani (Agbayani), Gloria
Soriano (Soriano), Cris Calma (Calma), Nora Liwanag (Liwanag), and the
Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro (ROD) (collectively, Respondents). 5
The Facts
Sometime in 1971, Meynardo filed an Application for Free Patent
concerning an 8,072 6 square-meter parcel of land situated in Pining, Roxas,
Oriental Mindoro. 7 In said application, Meynardo alleged that he had been in
possession of such parcel of land since 1936, through his predecessor-in-
interest Marcelo Cabrera. 8
In the same year, the Bureau of Lands (BOL) issued Free Patent No.
516197 in favor of Meynardo, covering two (2) lots denominated as: (i) Lot 1
with an area of 3,591 square meters, and (ii) Lot 2, with an area of 4,481
square meters. 9 On the basis of said patent, the ROD issued Original
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RP-132 (P-9193) covering both lots in
Meynardo's name. 10
Thereafter, a 2,445-square-meter portion of Lot 1 (Lot 1-A) 11 was
transferred to Consolacion. 12 Thus, on April 6, 1982, Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 16580 covering Lot 1-A was issued in Consolacion's name. 13
Later still, Consolacion sold portions of Lot 1-A to several purchasers namely:
Dy, Agbayani, Soriano, Calma, and Liwanag. 14
Learning of the issuance of TCT No. 16580, Jose and Leticia De Castro
(De Castros), claiming to be the actual possessors of Lot 1-A, filed before the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) a petition urging
DENR to conduct an investigation to determine Lot 1-A's land classification
status. 15
Consequently, in the DENR Final Investigation Report 16 (DENR Final
Report) dated November 9, 1994 issued by Erwin D. Talento of the DENR
Land Management Office (LMO), Free Patent No. 516197, covering Lots 1, 1-
A, and 2 (collectively, Roxas Properties), was declared null and void for
having been issued over land forming part of the public domain. The
pertinent portions of the DENR Final Report read:
Sensing that they don't have any chance in the court to prove their
better right to occupy and possess [Lot 1-A] x x x the [De Castros]
addressed their petitions to the DENR basing their claim on the
weight of a certification of [the National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority (NAMRIA)] x x x. The [De Castros] are now
seeking administrative remedies for the issue which they have
already brought to the attention of the court and wherein they have
failed to prove their priority right to occupy and possess [Lot 1-A].
Granting that [the Roxas Properties constitute] forest land
and [Free Patent No. 516197] issued in favor of [Meynardo]
be (sic) rendered null and void [ab] initio, it (sic) doesn't warrant
that they have better right to possess and occupy [Lot 1-A] because
[Meynardo, through his predecessors-in-interest] have entered [Lot 1-
A] since the year 1943 and have exercised their ownership over the
same x x x.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that
the petition of [the De Castros] be dismissed x x x and appropriate
legal action be instituted for the cancellation of Free Patent
No. 516197 issued in favor of Meynardo x x x for the same
covers land of the public domain which is certified by the
proper authority as public forest. 17 (Emphasis supplied.)
Thereafter, Antonio G. Principe, the DENR Regional Executive Director
of Region IV, issued an Order 18 dated August 8, 1997 declaring Free Patent
No. 516197 null and void.
Later, on November 15, 1999, the Republic filed against the
Respondents a complaint (Complaint) for the annulment and/or cancellation
of Free Patent No. 516197, OCT No. RP-132 (P-9193), and TCT No. 16580.
The Complaint also prayed for the reversion of the Roxas Properties in the
State's favor. 19
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 The Republic based its claim on the (i) DENR Final Report; and (ii)
NAMRIA certifications dated January 31, 1994, February 1, 1994, and October
3, 1994, all stating that the Roxas Properties (including Lot 1-A) had been
reclassified as forest land as early as November 24, 1949. The statements in
these documents were, in turn, based on the inscriptions appearing on Land
Classification Map No. 209 (LC Map 209) dated March 6, 1924 covering the
Roxas Properties. The Republic reasoned that while LC Map 209 indicates
that the parcels of land thereunder were classified as alienable and
disposable at the time it was prepared, a subsequent annotation made
thereon indicates that they were reclassified as forest land sometime
thereafter, and had thus become inalienable. 20
In their respective answers, the Respondents averred, among others,
that: (i) Lot 1-A forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public
domain, as evidenced by the original statements appearing on LC Map 209;
(ii) the annotations appearing on LC Map 209 do not serve as sufficient proof
of reversion; and (iii) the land area which had been purportedly reclassified
as forest land was not properly identified since the Republic failed to present
the technical description corresponding thereto. 21 In addition to these
common assertions, respondents Dy, Agbayani, Soriano, and Liwanag further
averred that they acquired portions of Lot 1-A from Consolacion in good
faith, and have, since then, been in actual, exclusive, open, and continuous
possession of their respective portions as owners. 22
On December 5, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive
portion of which states:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the
instant complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 23

The RTC found that the Republic failed to present proof that the Roxas
Properties (including Lot 1-A) have been reclassified as forest land. Citing
Republic v. Animas, 24 (Animas) the RTC held that in order to prove reversion
of alienable and disposable land to forest land, a positive government act
evincing the same is necessary. 25
The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration (MR), which was denied
in the RTC's Order dated October 18, 2011. 26
CA Proceedings
Aggrieved, the Republic elevated the case to the CA via petition for
review under Rule 42, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 98120 (Appeal).
In the Appeal, the Republic argued that the Court's ruling in Animas
cannot be applied to the present case, since, in the former, the fact sought
to be established was the classification of forest land to alienable and
disposable land, and not the other way around, as in this case.27 Further,
the Republic averred that fraud must have necessarily attended the issuance
of Free Patent No. 516197, OCT No. RP-132 and TCT No. 16580, owing to the
status of the Roxas Properties as forest land. 28
On July 18, 2014, the CA rendered the Assailed Decision dismissing the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Appeal. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DISMISSED.
The Decision dated December 5, 2005 of the [RTC] x x x is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 29

According to the CA, the Public Land Act vests the power to classify
(and reclassify) lands of the public domain with the President. On this score,
the CA held that the annotations appearing on LC Map 209 anent the alleged
reversion of the Roxas Properties deserve scant consideration, as they do
not appear to be based on any executive directive. Consequently, the
NAMRIA certifications and DENR Final Report relied upon by the Republic are
insufficient to sustain its cause, as they are, in turn, based solely on said
annotations. 30
The Republic filed an MR, which was denied by the CA in its Assailed
Resolution dated May 20, 2015. The Republic received a copy of the Assailed
Resolution on June 8, 2015. 31
On June 19, 2015, the Republic filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
File Petition for Review, praying for an additional period of twenty-five (25)
days from June 23, 2015, or until July 18, 2015 within which to file a petition
for review on certiorari. Subsequently, the Republic filed a Second Motion for
Extension, praying for a five (5)-day extension. 32
Finally, on July 22, 2015, the Republic filed the present Petition, to
which Respondents filed their Compliance and Comment dated December
16, 2016. 33
Thereafter, the Republic filed a Manifestation and Motion dated May
28, 2017, adopting the Petition as its reply to Respondents' Compliance and
Comment. 34
The Issue
The Petition calls on the Court to determine whether the CA erred when
it held that a positive act of government is necessary to evince the
reclassification of land from alienable and disposable to forest.
The Court's Ruling
In this Petition, the Republic maintains that the Court's ruling in Animas
did not have the effect of making a positive executive act a necessary
requirement for the purpose of proving the reclassification of alienable and
disposable land. 35 Instead, the Republic posits that Animas affirms its right
to institute reversion proceedings in instances where portions of forest land
are erroneously included within the scope of land patents. 36 Moreover, the
Republic argues that in reversion proceedings, the State should not be made
to bear the burden of proving that the land in question constitutes public
domain (i.e., forest land). 37 In any case, the Republic posits that the
documentary and testimonial evidence it had presented sufficiently proved
such fact. 38
The Petition should be denied for lack of merit. The CA did not err
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 when it affirmed the RTC Decision, as the Republic failed to establish that
the Roxas Properties were classified as forest land at the time Free Patent
No. 516197 was issued.
The Republic's Petition and
Respondents' Compliance and
Comment should be admitted in the
interest of substantial justice.
At the outset, the Court notes that the parties herein, albeit at different
stages of the proceedings, have both prayed for the relaxation of the Rules
of Court (Rules).
For its part, the Republic filed two (2) motions which sought for an
aggregate period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the initial thirty
(30)-day period prescribed by the Rules for the filing of a petition for review
on certiorari. The Respondents, on the other hand, sought the admission of
their Compliance and Comment, filed more than seven (7) months after the
filing of the Petition. 39
Considering the nature of the issues involved in the present Petition,
and the lack of evidence showing that neither the Republic's nor the
Respondents' requests for accommodation had been impelled by any ill-
motive, the Court resolves to admit in the interest of substantial justice the
Republic's Petition and the Respondents' Comment with Compliance.
The Court's ruling in Animas does not
apply to the present case.
The Republic's Petition primarily proceeds from the supposition that in
ruling in favor of Respondents, the RTC and the CA erroneously relied on
Animas.
In Animas, the Republic filed an action for reversion against respondent
therein, claiming that the Free Patent issued in the latter's favor covered
forest land. The Court of First Instance dismissed the Republic's action on the
ground that the original certificate of title covering said land had become
indefeasible, the same having been issued more than one (1) year prior to
the filing of the Republic's action. Hence, the issue brought before the Court
in Animas was whether the lapse of said one (1)-year period had the effect of
precluding the State from initiating reversion proceedings to recover land
which had been unlawfully registered, either through fraud or oversight.
Resolving the issue, the Court held that public land fraudulently or
erroneously included in the scope of patents or certificates of title may be
recovered by the State through reversion proceedings, in accordance with
the Public Land Act.
While the Animas ruling upholds the State's right to seek reversion with
respect to fraudulently or erroneously registered lands, it does not, in any
manner, lay down the facts that must be established for an action for
reversion to prosper. Undoubtedly, the RTC and CA's reliance on the Animas
ruling is misplaced.
Nevertheless, such erroneous reliance on Animas, as will be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 discussed below, does not advance the Republic's cause, since the
principle which serves as basis for the decisions of the RTC and CA
remains correct, albeit attributed to the wrong case.
The power to classify and reclassify
land lies solely with the Executive
Department.
The Regalian Doctrine has long been recognized as the basic
foundation of the State's property regime, 40 and has been consistently
adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions; 41 it espouses that
all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that, as a
consequence thereof, any asserted right of ownership over land necessarily
traces back to the State. 42
At present, Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classifies
lands of the public domain into five (5) categories — forest lands,
agricultural lands, timber lands, mineral lands, and national parks. The
Court's ruling in Heirs of the Late Spouses Palanca v. Republic, 43 instructs
that in the absence of any prior classification by the State, unclassified lands
of the public domain assume the category of forest lands not open to
disposition. 44
In turn, the classification of unclassified lands of the public domain, and
the reclassification of those previously classified under any of the categories
set forth in the 1987 Constitution (such as the Roxas Properties), are
governed by Commonwealth Act No. 141 45 dated November 7, 1936,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act. Sections 6 and 7 thereof provide:
SEC. 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; and
(c) Mineral lands,
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.
SEC. 7. For the purposes of the administration and
disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the President, upon
recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall
from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or
concession under this Act. (Emphasis supplied)
These provisions are clear and leave no room for interpretation — the
classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable,
mineral or forest land is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive
Department, 46 and is exercised by the latter through the President, or such
other persons vested with authority to exercise the same on his behalf. 47
Since the power to classify and reclassify land are executive in nature,
such acts, effected without executive authority, are void, and essentially
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 ultra vires.
In reversion proceedings, the State
bears the burden of proving that the
property in question was inalienable
at the time it was decreed or
adjudicated in favor of the defendant.
A land registration proceeding is the manner through which an
applicant confirms title to real property. In this proceeding, the applicant
bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of State ownership. 48
Accordingly, the applicant is bound to establish, through incontrovertible
evidence, that the land sought to be registered had been declared alienable
or disposable through a positive act of the State. 49
Conversely, reversion proceeding is the manner through which the
State seeks to revert land to the mass of the public domain; 50 it is proper
when public land is fraudulently awarded and disposed of in favor of private
individuals or corporations, 51 or when a person obtains a title under the
Public Land Act which includes, by oversight, lands which cannot be
registered under the Torrens system as they form part of the public domain.
52

Owing to the nature of reversion proceedings and the outcome which a

favorable decision therein entails, the State bears the burden to prove that
the land previously decreed or adjudicated in favor of the defendant
constitutes land which cannot be owned by private individuals. The Court's
ruling in Republic v. Development Resources Corporation 53 is instructive:
Since a complaint for reversion can upset the stability of
registered titles through the cancellation of the original title and the
others that emanate from it, the State bears a heavy burden of
proving the ground for its action. x x x 54 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in Republic v. Espinosa 55 (Espinosa), the Court held that the
dismissal of the Republic's action for reversion is proper since the Republic
failed to establish that the land subject thereof was classified as forest land
at the time the cadastral decree in favor of the defendant was
issued:
[I]t is undisputed that Espinosa was granted a cadastral decree and
was subsequently issued OCT No. 191-N x x x. Having been granted a
decree in a cadastral proceeding, Espinosa can be presumed to have
overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered
forms part of the public domain. This means that Espinosa, as the
applicant, was able to prove by incontrovertible evidence that the
property is alienable and disposable property in the cadastral
proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, the State, through the Solicitor General, alleges
neither fraud nor misrepresentation in the cadastral proceedings and
in the issuance of the title in Espinosa's favor. The argument for the
State is merely that the property was unlawfully included in the
certificate of title because it is of the public domain.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Since the case is one for reversion and not one for land
registration, the burden is on the State to prove that the
property was classified as timberland or forest land at the
time it was decreed to Espinosa. To reiterate, there is no
burden on [the present owner] to prove that the property in
question is alienable and disposable land. At this stage, it is
reasonable to presume that Espinosa, from whom [the
present owner] derive[s] her title, had already established
that the property is alienable and disposable land considering
that she succeeded in obtaining the OCT over it. In this
reversion proceeding, the State must prove that there was an
oversight or mistake in the inclusion of the property in
Espinosa's title because it was of public dominion. This is
consistent with the rule that the burden of proof rests on the party
who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case,
asserts the affirmative of an issue. 56 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Hence, to resolve this Petition, the Court must determine whether the
documentary and testimonial evidence offered by the Republic are sufficient
to sustain its cause.
The Complaint should be dismissed as
the Republic failed to show that the
Roxas Properties (including Lot 1-A)
were classified as forest land at the
time Free Patent No. 516197 was
issued in Meynardo's favor.
To recall, the Republic presented the following pieces of evidence to
support its complaint for reversion: (i) DENR Final Report; (ii) NAMRIA
certifications; and (iii) LC Map 209. However, these documents, whether
taken individually or collectively, do not evince a positive act of
reclassification by the Executive Department. As aptly stated by the CA:
In this case, the Republic presented the [NAMRIA certifications],
the [DENR Final Report] and [LC Map 209] dated March 6, 1924, with
an inscription that the [Roxas Properties] [were] reverted x x x to the
category of forest land on November 24, 1949. However, it appears
that the findings of the CENRO and the NAMRIA are based solely on
such mapping [LC Map 209] where eighteen (18) hectares, including
the location therein of the [Roxas Properties], [were] reclassified as
forest land. Engineer [Mariano] Mendez 57 testified that:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So you don't have the law or the order reverting that portion of
land to forest land on November 24, 1949?
A: Except only that it is a swamp land. And it is shown here in our
map, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. MARCO:
x x x [W]hat is the basis, if any, of you (sic) in declaring that this
portion of land was reverted back from timber land to forest land
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 on November 24, 1949?
A: Our files and records.
Q: What are these files and records?
A: As indicated in [LC Map 209].
Engineer Mendez admitted that there was no
presidential order or act reverting the classification of the
subject property from alienable and disposable to forest land,
thus:
Q: Did you prepare the basis of the reversion of the land from
disposable to forest land on November 24, 1949?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What were the basis?
A: Yes, because when I studied that, I found out that the area was a
swamp land?
Q: Aside from that, that the area was a swamp land, what are your
other basis?
A: Nothing more, sir. As per records, that is the only basis.
Q: Did you not research any law, decree, presidential order or act
as the basis of reverting this parcel of land to forest zone on
November 24, 1949?
A: I have even decrees or law reverting certain area to
forest land but not in this particular area.
Q: So, you know that before a certain parcel of land would be
reverted from alienable and disposable to forest zone, there
should be a basis for the same, like proclamation or law. From
your experience, presidential decrees?
A: Yes, sir. These are proclamation decrees regarding the reversion
of certain land use. But in this particular area, the land is swamp
land.
Q: But in this particular case, did you encounter or did you see any
law, executive order, presidential proclamation declaring this
parcel of land from alienable and disposable to forest zone?
A: I have not encountered any decree or presidential
proclamation or order reverting this land to forest zone. x
xx
Even Engineer Mendez of the NAMRIA agreed that a law or
proclamation is required before a certain parcel of land is reclassified
from alienable and disposable to forest land. His insistence that
because the land was (originally) swamp land that reclassification
was made (sic), is not supported by any presidential or legal
pronouncement or by practice and tradition x x x Unfortunately, the
Republic failed to present any law, presidential proclamation, order or
act to prove that the subject property was indeed within the area
which is reclassified as forest land. Even an administrative order from
the Bureau of Forestry was not presented to show that the subject
property had been reclassified as forest land. 58 (Additional emphasis
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 and underscoring supplied)
The foregoing testimony, culled from the Assailed Decision, confirms
that the alleged reclassification of the Roxas Properties is bereft of basis, as
it was done by Engineer Mendez on his sole account, without any prior
directive from the President, or a duly authorized officer from the Executive
Department. In fact, the annotation appearing on LC Map 209 upon which
the Republic relies does not even state upon whose authority the alleged
reclassification had been made, 59 placing the annotation's validity, veracity
and worth in serious doubt.
Ultimately, the Republic failed to prove that the Roxas Properties
(including Lot 1-A) were classified as forest land when they were decreed in
Meynardo's favor in 1971. Thus, in accordance with the Court's ruling in
Development Resources Corporation and Espinosa, the present Petition must
be, as it is hereby, denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on
Certiorari is DENIED. The Assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
July 18, 2014 and Resolution dated May 20, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98120
are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
* On official leave.
1. Rollo , pp. 19-43.
2. Id. at 45-65. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with
Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
3. Id. at 67-69. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with
Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
4. See id . at 46. The RTC Decision does not form part of the records.
5. Id. at 47-48.

6. Stated as 8072 hectares, more or less, in the Petition and CA Decision; id . at 22

and 47.

7. Rollo , pp. 46-47.

8. See id . at 63.
9. Id. at 46-47.
10. Id. at 47.
11. Referred to as Lot 1-E in some parts of the records.

12. The relationship between Meynardo and Consolacion, as well as the manner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 through which Lot 1-A was transferred by the former to the latter, cannot be
determined from the records of the case.
13. Rollo , p. 47.

14. The specific dates of conveyance cannot be ascertained from the records.
15. Rollo , p. 47.
16. Id. at 82-83.
17. Id. at 83.

18. Id. at 70-72.

19. Id. at 47.
20. See id . at 63. According to the CA, the annotation on LC Map 209 stated that
"the subject property was reverted (sic) to forest land on November 24,
1949." A copy of said map, however, does not form part of the records of the
case.
21. See id . at 49-50.

22. Id. at 48-49.

23. Id. at 53.

24. 155 Phil. 470 (1974).

25. Rollo , pp. 54-55.

26. Id. at 54.

27. Id. at 55.

28. See id . at 60-61.

29. Id. at 64.

30. See id . at 55-59.

31. Id. at 4.
32. Id. at 11-14.

33. Id. at 196-206.

34. Id. at 213-216.

35. See id . at 26.

36. Id. at 32.

37. Id. at 34-35.

38. Id. at 35.

39. The exact date on which Respondents received a copy of the Petition cannot be
ascertained from the records.

40. Republic v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 186603, April 5, 2017, p. 10, citing SAAD Agro-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Industries, Inc. v. Republic, 534 Phil. 648, 663 (2006).
41. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, 589
Phil. 156, 176 (2008).
42. Id.

43. 531 Phil. 602, 616 (2006).

44. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap,
supra note 41, at 196.
45. COM. ACT NO. 141, entitled "AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE LAWS
RELATIVE TO LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN" (1936).
46. Heirs of the Late Spouses Palanca v. Republic, supra note 43, at 618.

47. See COM. ACT NO. 141 (1936), Sec. 6.

48. Republic v. Espinosa, supra note 40, at 5.

49. Id.

50. See id . at 6.
51. Id.

52. Id.

53. 623 Phil. 490 (2009).

54. Id. at 493.

55. Supra note 40.

56. Id. at 5-6.

57. Engineer Mariano Mendez was the designated Land Classification Verifier of
NAMRIA during the relevant period; rollo, p. 51.

58. Rollo , pp. 56-59.

59. Id. at 63.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com