Secretary of DENR vs Yap

GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008 All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as a government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to
tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. the State as part of the inalienable public domain.  
1801 precluded them from filing an application for a
judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land
for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed a Republic vs Naguiat
petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo,
Aklan. G.R. No. 134209; January 24, 2006

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General FACTS:

(OSG) opposed the petition countering that Boracay
Celestina Naguiat filed an application for registration of
Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It
title to four parcels of land located in Panan, Botolan,
formed part of the mass of lands classified as “public
Zambales. The applicant alleges that she is the owner of
forest,” which was not available for disposition pursuant
the said parcels of land having acquired them by
to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry
purchase from its previous owners and their
Code.
predecessors-in-interest who have been in possession
thereof for more than thirty (30) years; and that to the
best of her knowledge, said lots suffer no mortgage or
ISSUE:
encumbrance of whatever kind nor is there any person
 Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are having any interest, legal or equitable, or in possession
automatically deemed agricultural land, therefore thereof.
making these lands alienable.
 Petitioner Republic opposed on the ground that neither
the applicant nor her predecessors-in interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
HELD:
possession and occupation of the lands in question
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto, considering the fact
registration is alienable, the applicant must establish that she has not established that the lands in question
the existence of a positive act of the government such have been declassified from forest or timber zone to
as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an alienable and disposable property.
administrative action, investigative reports of the
Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or
statute. ISSUE:

A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable Did the areas in question cease to have the status of
is required. In keeping with the presumption of state forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain?
ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized
that there must be a positive act of the government,
such as an official proclamation, declassifying HELD:
inalienable public land into disposable land for
No, the said areas are still classified as forest land.The
agricultural or other purposes.
issue of whether or not respondent and her
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the predecessors-in-interest have been in open, exclusive
public domain belong to the State, that the State is the and continuous possession of the parcels of land in
source of any asserted right to ownership of land and question is of little moment. For, unclassified land
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or
possession; occupation thereof in the concept of owner,
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership and  
be registered as title.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Capiz
A forested area classified as forest land of the public adjudicated 117,956 square meters to Emeterio Bereber
domain does not lose such classification simply because and the rest of the land containing 527,747 square
loggers or settlers have stripped it of its forest cover. meters was adjudicated in the proportion of 5/6 share
Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be to Angel Alpasan and 1/6 share to Melquiades Borre.
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. The A petition for review on certiorari was filed by the Heirs
classification is merely descriptive of its legal nature or of Jose Amunategui contending that the disputed lot
status and does not have to be descriptive of what the had been in the possession of private persons for over
land actually looks like. 30 years and therefore in accordance with Republic Act
No. 1942, said lot could still be the subject of
registration and confirmation of title in the name of a
Heirs of Amunategui vs Director of Forestry private person in accordance with Act No. 496 known as
the Land Registration Act. Another petition for review
G.R. No. L-27873. November 29, 1983
on certiorari was filed by Roque Borre and Encarnacion
FACTS: Delfin, contending that the trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing their complaint against
These are two petitions for review on certiorari the Heirs of Jose Amunategui. The Borre complaint was
questioning the decision of the CA which declared the for the annulment of the deed of absolute sale of Lot No
disputed property as forest land, not subject to titling in . 885 executed by them in favor of the Heirs of
favor of private persons. These petitions have their Amunategui. The complaint was dismissed on the basis
genesis in an application for confirmation of imperfect of the CA’s decision that the disputed lot is part of the
title and its registration filed with the Court of First public domain. The petitioners also question the
Instance of Capiz. The parcel of land sought to be jurisdiction of the CA in passing upon the relative rights
registered is known as Lot No. 885 of the Cadastral of the parties over the disputed lot when its final
Survey of Pilar, Capiz, and has an area of 645,703 square decision after all is to declare said lot a part of the
meters. public domain classified as forest land.
Petitioners Roque Borre and Melquiades Borre, filed the The Heirs of Jose Amunategui maintain that Lot No. 885
application for registration. In due time, the heirs of cannot be classified as forest land because it is not
Jose Amunategui filed an opposition to the application thickly forested but is a “mangrove swamp”.
of Roque and Melquiades Borre. 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 ISSUE:  Whether or not Lot No. 885 is public forest land,
confirmed and registered in the names of said Heirs of not capable of registration in the names of the private
Jose Amunategui. The Director of Forestry, through the applicants.
Prov. 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
RULING: A forested area classified as forest land of the
land and part of the public domain. Another oppositor,
public domain does not lose such classification simply
Emeterio Bereber filed his opposition insofar as a
because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
portion of Lot No. 885 containing 117,956 square
forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may
meters was concerned. Applicant-petitioner Roque
actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by
Borre sold whatever rights and interests he may have
kaingin cultivators or other farmers. “Forest lands” do
on Lot No. 885 to Angel Alpasan. The latter also filed an
not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places
opposition, claiming that he is entitled to have said lot
. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms,
registered in his name.
and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may
also be classified as forest land. The classification is established that the subject land is a portion of the
descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not Calauag Bay and not suitable to vegetation. Morato
have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks mortgaged the property to respondents Quilatan and
like. Unless and until the land classified as “forest” is Advincula. Petitioner filed an amended complaint
released in an official proclamation to that effect so that against respondents and the Register of Deeds of
it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of Quezon for the cancellation of title and reversion of a
the public domain, the rules on confirmation of parcel of land to the public domain, subject of a free
imperfect title do not apply. Possession of forest lands, patent in favor of respondent Morato, on the grounds
no matter how long, cannot ripen into private that the land is a foreshore land and was mortgaged
ownership. It bears emphasizing that a positive act of and leased within the five-year prohibitory period. After
Government is needed to declassify land which is trial, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing
classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or petitioner's complaint. In finding for private
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. respondents, the lower court ruled that there was no
violation of the 5-year period ban against alienating or
The fact that no trees enumerated in Section 1821 of
encumbering the land, because the land was merely
the Revised Administrative Code are found in Lot No.
leased and not alienated. It also found that the
885 does not divest such land of its being classified as
mortgage to Quilatan covered only the improvement
forest land, much less as land of the public domain. The
and not the land itself. the Court of Appeals affirmed
appellate court found that in 1912, the land must have
the decision of the trial court.
been a virgin forest as stated by Emeterio Bereber’s
witness Deogracias Gavacao, and that as late as 1926, it Issue/s:
must have been a thickly forested area as testified by
WON the lease and/or mortgage of a portion of
Jaime Bertolde. The opposition of the Director of
a realty acquired through free patent constitute
Forestry was strengthened by the appellate court’s
sufficient ground for the nullification of such land grant.
finding that timber licenses had to be issued to certain
licensees and even Jose Amunategui himself took the WON property revert to the State once it is
trouble to ask for a license to cut timber within the area invaded by the sea and thus becomes foreshore land.
. It was only sometime in 1950 that the property was
converted into fishpond but only after a previous
warning from the District Forester that the same could Held:
not be done because it was classified as “public forest.”
Respondent Morato cannot fully use or enjoy
  the land during the duration of the lease contract. This
The court affirmed the finding that property Lot No. 885 restriction on the enjoyment of her property sufficiently
is part of the public domain, classified as public forest meets the definition of an encumbrance under Section
118 of the Public Land Act, because such contract "
land.  Petitions were DISMISSED.
impairs the use of the property" by the grantee. In a
contract of lease which is consensual, bilateral, onerous
and commutative, the owner temporarily grants the use
Republic vs CA, Morato
of his or her property to another who undertakes to pay
G.R. No. 100709 November 14, 1997 rent therefor.  During the term of the lease, the grantee
of the patent cannot enjoy the beneficial use of the land
Facts: leased. As already observed, the Public Land Act does
Morato filed a Free Patent Application on a not permit a grantee of a free patent from encumbering
parcel of land and the patent was approved and the any portion of such land. Such encumbrance is a ground
Register of Deeds with OCT. Both the free patent and for the nullification of the award. Even if only part of the
the title specifically mandate that the land shall not be  property has been sold or alienated within the
alienated nor encumbered within five years from the prohibited period of five years from the issuance of the
date of the issuance of the patent. District Land Officer patent, such alienation is a sufficient cause for the
in Lucena City conducted an investigation and it was reversion of the whole estate to the State. As a
condition for the grant of a free patent to an applicant, Peitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer
the law requires that the land should not be praying for mandamus, a writ of preliminary injunction
encumbered, sold or alienated within five years from and a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to
the issuance of the patent. The sale or the alienation of AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these
part of the homestead violates that condition. events, under President Estrada’s admin, PEA and
AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves
The application for a free patent was made in
claim that the contract is null and void.
1972. From the undisputed factual findings of the Court
of Appeals, however, the land has since become Issue:
foreshore. Accordingly, it can no longer be subject of a w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be
free patent under the Public Land Act.  When the sea reclaimed as part of the stipulations in the (Amended)
moved towards theestate and the tide invaded it, the JVA between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII of
invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the 1987 Constitution
the realm of the public domain. The subject land in this w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the issue
case, being foreshore land, should therefore be of whether the amended joint venture agreement is
returned to the public domain. grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Held:
On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the
Chavez v. Pea and Amari
constitution:
G.R. No. 133250           July 9, 2002 1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising
the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title
Fact: in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered domain. PEA may lease these lands to private
into a contract to reclaim areas of Manila Bay with the corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of
Construction and Development Corportion of the these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell
Philippines (CDCP). these lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the
ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President
existing laws.
Marcos under P.D. 1084, tasked with developing and
leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to 2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila
the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public
Cavite Road and Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands
and PEA entered into an agreement that all future open to disposition and declared no longer needed for
projects under the MCRRP would be funded and owned public service. The government can make such
by PEA. classification and declaration only after PEA has
reclaimed these submerged areas. Only then can these
By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No.
lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public domain,
3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was followed by the
which are the only natural resources the government
transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the
can alienate. In their present state, the 592.15 hectares
Register of Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the
of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the
three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM
commerce of man.
ISLANDS.
3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a
Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint venture
private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of
agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-Philippine
the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being
corporation to develop the Freedom Islands. Along with
contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
another 250 hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA
Constitution which prohibits private corporations from
which would later transfer said lands to AMARI. This
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the
domain.
agreement, claiming that such lands were part of public
domain (famously known as the “mother of all scams”).
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural
submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for resources other than agricultural lands of the public
domain.

PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter,

the government can classify the reclaimed lands as
alienable or disposable, and further declare them no
longer needed for public service. Still, the transfer of
such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to
AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the
1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
domain.

Republic vs CA

G.R. No. 103882 November 25, 1998

REPUBLIC v. COURT OF APPEALS

GR Nos. 103882, 105276 November 25, 1998

FACTS:

                On June 22, 1957, RA 1899 was approved

granting authority to all municipalities and chartered
cities to undertake and carry out at their own expense
the reclamation by dredging, filling, or other means, of
any foreshore lands bordering them, and to establish,
provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and
adequate docking and harbor facilities as such
municipalities and chartered cities may determine in
consultation with the Secretary of Finance and the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

Pursuant to the said law, Ordinance No. 121 was passed

by the city of Pasay for the reclamation of foreshore
lands within their jurisdiction and entered into an
agreement with Republic Real Estate Corporation for
the said project.

Republic questioned the agreement. It contended,

among others, that the agreement between RREC and
the City of Pasay was void for the object of the contract
is outside the commerce of man, it being a foreshore
land.  
Pasay City and RREC countered that the object in Republic vs Enciso
question is within the commerce of man because RA
G.R. No. 160145 November 11, 2005
1899 gives a broader meaning on the term “foreshore
land” than that in the definition provided by the FACTS:
dictionary.
The respondent averred, inter alia, that he acquired title
to the said lot by virtue of an extrajudicial settlement of
RTC rendered judgment in favour of Pasay City and estate and quitclaim on March 15, 1999; the said
RREC, and the decision was affirmed by the CA with property is not tenanted or occupied by any person
modifications. other than the respondent and his family who are in
actual physical possession of the same; and the
respondent and his predecessors-in-interest have been
in continuous, peaceful, open, notorious, uninterrupted
ISSUE:
and adverse possession of the land in the concept of an
I.        Whether or not the term “foreshore land” owner for not less than 30 years immediately preceding
includes the submerged area. the filing of the application.

II.      Whether or not “foreshore land” and the Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through
reclaimed area is within the commerce of man. the OSG, opposed the application. The trial court issued
an Order of Default against all persons with the
exception of the government.
HELD:
The respondent presented tax receipts to show
The Court ruled that it is erroneous and unsustainable that the property was declared for taxation purposes in
to uphold the opinion of the respondent court that the his name. He also testified that he acquired the
term “foreshore land” includes the submerged areas. To property by inheritance from his deceased father,
repeat, the term "foreshore lands" refers to: Vicente Enciso, who died on May 18, 1991. He then
immediately took possession of the property and
The strip of land that lies between the high and low
constructed a house thereon in 1991. On March 15,
water marks and that is alternately wet and dry
1999, he and his siblings executed an extrajudicial
according to the flow of the tide.  
settlement of estate where the land was adjudicated in
A strip of land margining a body of water (as a lake or his favor.
stream); the part of a seashore between the low-water
The respondent further narrated that the
line usually at the seaward margin of a low-tide terrace
property was originally owned by the Municipality of
and the upper limit of wave wash at high tide usually
Masinloc, Zambales.
marked by a beach scarp or berm.(Webster's Third New
International Dictionary) The trial court ruled in favor the respondents.
The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The duty of the court is to interpret the enabling Act, RA
1899. In so doing, we cannot broaden its meaning;
much less widen the coverage thereof. If the intention
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred on a question of
of Congress were to include submerged areas, it should
law in granting respondent’s petition for registration
have provided expressly. That Congress did not so
sans any showing that the subject property was
provide could only signify the exclusion of submerged
previously declared alienable and disposable lands of
areas from the term “foreshore lands.”
the public domain.
It bears stressing that the subject matter of Pasay City
Ordinance No. 121, as amended by Ordinance No. 158,
and the Agreement under attack, have been found to RULING:
be outside the intendment and scope of RA 1899, and
The petition is meritorious.
therefore ultra vires and null and void.
While it is the rule that findings of fact of appellate
courts are conclusive upon this Court, among the
recognized exceptions is where the findings of fact are
not supported by the record or are conspicuously
erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.
This is the situation in this case.

Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the

Property Registration Decree, provides:

SEC. 14. Who may apply. –The following persons may

file in the proper Court of First Instance an application
for registration of title to land, whether personally or
through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their

predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier.

Applicants for registration of title must

therefore prove the following: (a) that the land forms
part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public
domain; and (b) that they have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership either since time immemorial, or since June
12, 1945.

The evidence on record shows that a house was

constructed on the subject property only in 1991.

Evidently, the respondent failed to prove that (1) Lot No

. 2278-A was classified as part of the disposable and
alienable land of the public domain; and (2) he and his
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation
thereof in the concept of owners since time immemorial
, or from June 12, 1945.