Collado VS.
Court of Appeals features which supply
Doctrines: human need and contribute
to the health, welfare and
1. The 1987 Constitution readopted
benefit of a community and
the policy that all lands of public
domain as well as all natural
are essential to the well –
resources enumerated in the being thereof and proper
Philippine Constitution belong to enjoyment of property
the state. devoted to park and
2. The Regalian Doctrine dictates recreational purposes.
that all lands of the public 6. Watershed – an area
domain belong to the State, that
drained by river and its
the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of
tributaries and enclosed by
land and charged with the a boundary or divide which
conservation of such patrimony separates it from the
3. Both the 1935 and 1973 adjacent watersheds.
Constitution prohibited the However, this definition
alienation of all natural does not exactly depict the
resources except agricultural
complexities of a watershed.
lands of the public domain.
The most important product
4. Any watershed or any area
of a watershed is “water”
of land adjacent to any
which is one of the most
surface water or overlaying
important human
any ground water may be
necessities.
declared by the Department
7. Any watershed or any area
of Natural Resources as a
of land adjacent to any
protected area.
surface water or overlying
5. The term “natural
any ground of water may be
resources” includes not only
declared by DENR as a
timber, gas, oil, coal,
protected area. This is to
mineral, lakes, and
prohibit or control such
submerged lands, but also,
activities by the owners or 10. Once a parcel of land
occupants within the is included within a
protected area which may watershed reservation duly
damage or cause established by Executive
deterioration of the surface Proclamation, as in the case
water. at bar, a presumption arises
8. The possession of public that the land continues to
land however long the be part of such reservation
period may have extended until clear and convincing
never confers title upon the evidence of subsequent
possessor because the declassification is shown.
statute of limitations with 11. The right of reversion
regard to public land does or reconveyance to the state
not operate against the of the public properties
state. UNLESS, the occupant registered and which are not
can prove possession and capable of private
occupation of the same appropriation or private
under claim of ownership of acquisition does not
the required number of prescribe.
years to constitute a grant
from the state.
9. No public land can be
acquired by private persons
without any grant, express
or implied from the
government; it is
indispensible that there be a
showing of a title from the
state.
Facts: Petitioner alleged that they have
occupied the Lot since time
Petitioner Edna Callado filed with
immemorial. Their possession has
the land registration court an
been open, public, notorious and
application for registration of a
in the concept of owners.
parcel of land (it is a “Lot” for
Moreover, The lot was surveyed in
brevity – which means shortness)
the name of Leyva, one of their
The lot is situated in Antipolo Rizal predecessor – in – interest, as early
and covered by a survey plan. as March 1902.
Attached to the application was
Petitioner also declared the lot for
the technical description of the lot
taxation purposes and paid all the
signed by Robert Pangyarihan
corresponding real estate taxes.
the officer – in – charge of the
According to the petitioner, there
Survey Division, Bureau of Lands
are now 25 co – owners in pro –
which stated that “this survey is
indiviso shares of 5 hectares each
inside IN-12 Mariquina Watershed”
and during the hearing of the case,
The republic of the Philippines they presented evidence to prove
through its solicitor general and that there have been 9 transfers of
the municipality of antipolo rights.
through its municipal attorney and
During the hearing of the case,
the provincial fiscal of rizal, filed
only the assistant provincial
oppositions to petitioner’s
prosecutor appeared without the
application.
Solicitor General. – For failure of
In due course, the land registration the oppositors to present
court issued an order of general evidence, the land registration
default against the whole world court issued an order considering
with the exception of the the case submitted for decision
oppositors. based on evidence of the
petitioner.
The court later set aside the order clear showing that the lot had
and reset the hearing, but the been previously classified as
oppositors failed to appear again alienable and disposable making it
despite due notice. Hence, the subject to private appropriation.
court again issued an order
Bockasanjo ISF awardees
submitting the case for decision
association, Inc. (an association of
based on the evidence of the
holders of certificates of
petitioners.
stewardship issued by DENR under
ISSUE: Whether or not the Lot in its Integrated Social Forestry
question is part of the public Program (ISF)) filed with the CA a
domain? motion for leave to intervene and
to admit petition – in –
TRIAL COURT’S RULING: the land
intervention. They likewise
registration court held that
opposed the registration and
petitioners had adduced sufficient
asserted that the Lot is inalienable.
evidence to establish their
They also claimed that they are the
registrable rights over the lot.
actual occupants of the lot
Accordingly (hence) the court
pursuant to the certificate of
rendered a decision confirming the
stewardship issued by the DENR
imperfect title of petitioner.
under the ISF tree planting
Petitioner prayed that the land purposes.
registration court order the land
THE COURT OF APPEAL’S RULING:
registration authority to issue the
the court of appeals declared null
necessary decree in their favor
and void the decision of the land
over the lot.
registration court. The CA
The solicitor general filed with the explained that under the Regalian
Court of Appeals a Petition for Doctrine, which is enshrined in our
Annulment of Judgement pursuant Constitution, all lands of the public
to Section 9(2) of BP Blg. 129 on domain belong to the state. An
the ground that there had been no
applicant, like the petitioner, for allegation of Collado’s application
registration of a parcel of land that “said parcel of land is not
bears the burden of overcoming covered by any form of title nor
the presumption that the land any public land application and are
sought to be registered forms part not within any government
of the public domain. A positive act reservation.
from the government is needed to
SUPREME COURT’S RULING:
declassify a public land and to
convert it into alienable or 1. First Issue: W/N petitioner
disposable land for agricultural or have registrable title over
other purposes. the lot? – The main thrust of
petitioner’s claim over the
In the case at bar, the petitioner
lot is that “all presidential
failed to present any evidence
proclamations like the
whatsoever that the land applied
proclamation setting aside
for as described in this case has
the Marikina Watershed
been segregated from the public
Reservation are subject to
domain and declared by
“private rights” (this find no
competent authority as alienable
basis in law)
and disposable. Worse, the
technical description signed by
Under the Regalian
Robert Pangyarihan the officer – in
Doctrine, all lands not
– charge, Survey Division, Bureau
otherwise appearing to be
of Lands which was attached to the
clearly within the private
application of private respondent,
ownership are presumed to
categorically stated that “this
be belong to the state.
survey is inside IN-12 Mariquina
Watershed” and this was affirmed
Moreover, the Public Land
by the National Land Titles and
Act operated on the
Deeds. Thus, these documents
assumption that title to
readily and effectively negate the
public lands in the Philippine 2. That his open,
Island remained in the continuous, exclusive and
government. Thus, it is notorious possession and
wrong to argue that under occupation of the same
Philippine Bill of 1902 and must either be since time
Public Land Act 926 mere immemorial or for the
possession by private period prescribed in the
individuals of lands create Public Land Act.
the legal presumption that
the lands are alienable and If this conditions are
disposable. complied with, the
possessor of the land
In the meantime, in order to acquires a right to a grant, a
establish a system of government grant, without
registration by which the necessity of a certificate
recorded title becomes of title being issued.
absolute, indefeasible and In the case at bar, petitioner
imprescriptible, the do not claim to have
legislature passed Act 496 documentary title over the
otherwise known as the lot. Their right to register
Land Registration Act which the lot is predicated mainly
placed all registered Lands upon continuous possession
in the Philippine under the since 1902.
torrens system. Clearly, petitioners are
unable to acquire a valid
The Public Land Act requires and enforceable right or title
that the applicant must because of the failure to
prove the following complete the required
1. That the land is alienable period of possession.
public land and
There is no proof that watershed reservation, the
petitioner had acquired lot was no longer
ownership or title to the Lot susceptible of occupancy,
either by deed or by any disposition, conveyance or
other mode of acquisition alienation.
from the state. Unless the land classified as
Sesinado Leyva had only such is released in an official
been in possession for 2 proclamation so that it may
years. Verily, petitioner form part of the disposable
have not possessed the agricultural lands of the
parcel of land in the manner public domain, the rules on
and for the number of years confirmation of imperfect
required by law for the tile do not apply. The
confirmation of imperfect technical description signed
title. by Pangyarihan as the
Assuming that the Lot was officer – in – charge stated
alienable and disposable that the lot “is inside IN – 12
land prior to the issuance of Mariquina Watersheds”
EO 33 in 1904, EO 33 which appears
reserved the lot as a unsatisfactorily and
watershed. At the time the insufficient to show clearly
petitioners filed their and positively that the Lot
application the lot has been had been officially released
reserved as a watershed for from the Marikina
81 years prior to the filing of Watershed Reservation to
petitioners application. The form part of the alienable
period of occupancy after and disposable lands of the
the issuance of EO 33 in public domain.
1904 could no longer be The SC hold that once a
counted because as a parcel of land is included
within a watershed the petitioner because a
reservation duly established forested area classified as
by Executive proclamation, forest land of the public
as in the case at bar, a domain does not lose such
presumption arises that the classification simply because
land continues to be part of loggers or settlers may have
such reservation until clear stripped it of its forest
and convincing evidence of cover. Forest lands do not
subsequent declassification have to be on mountains or
is shown. in out of way places. The
Based on the facts on classification is in
record, neither petitioners descriptive of its legal
nor their predecessors – in – nature and does not have to
interest have been in open, be descriptive of what the
continuous, exclusive and land actually looks like.
notorious possession and The land registration court
occupation of the Lot for at do not jurisdiction over the
least 30 years land that are not non –
Even if they submitted registrable such as public
sufficient proof that the lot navigable rivers which are
had been excluded from the parts of the public domain.
MWR upon the issuance of Hence, all proceedings of
proclamation, petitioners the of the land registration
possession as of the filing of court involving the lot are
their application would have null and void
been only 11 years counted. The argument of the
It is of no moment if the petitioner that the republic
areas of the MWR are now cannot file a petitioner for
fairly populated and vibrant annulment of judgement
communities as claimed by because they participated in
the case and by invoking res
– judicata and estoppel is of
no moment. The doctrine of
estoppel or laches does not
apply when the government
sues as a sovereign or
asserts governmental rights
nor does estoppel or laches
validate an act that
contravenes law or public
policy and the res – judicata
is to be disregarded if its
application would involve
the sacrifice of justice to
technicality.
