DENR Seeks to Nullify Land Titles in Boracay Island

6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
ENBANC
THESECRETARYOFTHEG.R.No.167707
DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENT
ANDNATURALRESOURCES,THE
REGIONALEXECUTIVEPresent:
DIRECTOR,DENRREGIONVI,
REGIONALTECHNICALPUNO,C.J.,
DIRECTORFORLANDS,QUISUMBING,
LANDSMANAGEMENTBUREAU,YNARESSANTIAGO,
REGIONVIPROVINCIALCARPIO,
ENVIRONMENTANDNATURALAUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
RESOURCESOFFICEROFKALIBO,CORONA,*
AKLAN,REGISTEROFDEEDS,CARPIOMORALES,
DIRECTOROFLANDAZCUNA,
REGISTRATIONAUTHORITY,TINGA,
DEPARTMENTOFTOURISMCHICONAZARIO,
SECRETARY,DIRECTOROFVELASCO,JR.,
PHILIPPINETOURISMNACHURA,**
AUTHORITY,REYES,
Petitioners,LEONARDODECASTRO,and
BRION,JJ.
versus
MAYORJOSES.YAP,LIBERTAD
TALAPIAN,MILAY.SUMNDAD,and
ANICETOYAP,intheirbehalfandPromulgated:
inbehalfofallthosesimilarlysituated,
Respondents.October8,2008
xx
DR.ORLANDOSACAYandG.R.No.173775
WILFREDOGELITO,joinedby
THELANDOWNERSOF
BORACAYSIMILARLY
SITUATEDNAMEDINALIST,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/167707.htm
1/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
ANNEXAOFTHISPETITION,
Petitioners,
versus
THESECRETARYOFTHE
DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENT
ANDNATURALRESOURCES,THE
REGIONALTECHNICAL
DIRECTORFORLANDS,LANDS
MANAGEMENTBUREAU,
REGIONVI,PROVINCIAL
ENVIRONMENTANDNATURAL
RESOURCESOFFICER,KALIBO,
AKLAN,
Respondents.
xx
DECISION
REYES,R.T.,J.:
ATstakeintheseconsolidatedcasesistherightofthepresentoccupantsofBoracayIslandto
securetitlesovertheiroccupiedlands.
Therearetwoconsolidatedpetitions.ThefirstisG.R.No.167707,apetitionforreviewon
[1]
[2]
certiorarioftheDecision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)affirmingthat oftheRegionalTrial
Court(RTC)inKalibo,Aklan,whichgrantedthepetitionfordeclaratoryrelieffiledbyrespondents
claimantsMayorJoseYap,etal.andorderedthesurveyofBoracayfortitlingpurposes.Thesecond
is G.R. No. 173775, a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No.
[3]
1064 issuedbyPresidentGloriaMacapagalArroyoclassifyingBoracayintoreservedforestand
agriculturalland.
TheAntecedents
G.R.No.167707
2/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
BoracayIslandintheMunicipalityofMalay,Aklan,withitspowderywhitesandbeachesand
warm crystalline waters, is reputedly a premier Philippine tourist destination. The island is also
[4]
[5]
hometo12,003inhabitants wholiveintheboneshapedislandsthreebarangays.
OnApril14,1976,theDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)approved
theNationalReservationSurveyofBoracay
[6]
[7]
Island, whichidentifiedseverallotsasbeingoccupiedorclaimedbynamedpersons.
[8]
OnNovember10,1978, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No.1801
declaringBoracayIsland,amongotherislands,cavesandpeninsulasinthePhilippines, as tourist
zones and marine reserves under the administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA).
[9]
PresidentMarcoslaterapprovedtheissuanceofPTACircular382 datedSeptember3,1982,to
implementProclamationNo.1801.
ClaimingthatProclamationNo.1801andPTACircularNo382precludedthemfromfiling
an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes,
respondentsclaimants
MayorJoseS. Yap, Jr., Libertad Talapian, Mila Y. Sumndad, andAniceto Yap filed a petition for
declaratoryreliefwiththeRTCinKalibo,Aklan.
Intheirpetition,respondentsclaimantsallegedthatProclamationNo.1801andPTACircular
No.382raiseddoubtsontheirrighttosecuretitlesovertheiroccupiedlands.Theydeclaredthat
theythemselves,orthroughtheirpredecessorsininterest,hadbeeninopen,continuous,exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time
[10]
immemorial.Theydeclaredtheirlandsfortaxpurposesandpaidrealtytaxesonthem.
RespondentsclaimantspositedthatProclamationNo.1801anditsimplementingCirculardid
notplaceBoracaybeyondthecommerceofman.SincetheIslandwasclassifiedasatouristzone,it
wassusceptibleofprivateownership.Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141,
otherwiseknownasthePublicLandAct,theyhadtherighttohavethelotsregisteredintheirnames
throughjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitles.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition for
3/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
declaratoryrelief.TheOSGcounteredthatBoracayIslandwasanunclassifiedland of the public

domain.Itformedpartofthemassoflandsclassifiedaspublicforest,whichwasnotavailablefor
disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry
[11]
Code,
asamended.
TheOSGmaintainedthatrespondentsclaimantsrelianceonPDNo.1801andPTACircular
No.382wasmisplaced.TheirrighttojudicialconfirmationoftitlewasgovernedbyCANo.141
andPDNo.705.SinceBoracayIslandhadnotbeenclassifiedasalienableanddisposable,whatever
possessiontheyhadcannotripenintoownership.
During pretrial, respondentsclaimants and the OSG stipulated on the following facts: (1)
respondentsclaimantswerepresentlyinpossessionofparcelsoflandinBoracayIsland(2)these
parcels of land were planted with coconut trees and other natural growing trees (3) the coconut
treeshadheightsofmoreorlesstwenty(20)metersandwereplantedmoreorlessfifty(50)years
[12]
agoand(4)respondentsclaimantsdeclaredthelandtheywereoccupyingfortaxpurposes.
The parties also agreed that the principal issue for resolution was purely legal: whether
Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or impediment to the titling of the lands in
Boracay.Theydecidedtoforegowiththetrialandtosubmitthecaseforresolutionuponsubmission
[13]
oftheirrespectivememoranda.
[14]
The RTC took judicial notice
that certain parcels of land in Boracay Island, more
particularlyLots1and30,PlanPSU5344,werecoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.19502
(RO2222)inthenameoftheHeirsofCiriacoS.Tirol.TheselotswereinvolvedinCivilCaseNos.
[15]
5222and5262filedbeforetheRTCofKalibo,Aklan.
Thetitleswereissuedon
[16]
August7,1933.
RTCandCADispositions
OnJuly14,1999,theRTCrenderedadecisioninfavorofrespondentsclaimants,withafallo
reading:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theCourtdeclaresthatProclamationNo.1801and
4/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
PTACircularNo.382posenolegalobstacletothepetitionersandthosesimilarlysituatedtoacquire
titletotheirlandsinBoracay,inaccordancewiththeapplicablelawsandinthemannerprescribed
thereinandtohavetheirlandssurveyedandapprovedbyrespondentRegionalTechnicalDirectorof
Landsastheapprovedsurveydoesnotinitselfconstituteatitletotheland.
[17]
SOORDERED.
TheRTCupheldrespondentsclaimantsrighttohavetheiroccupiedlandstitledintheirname.
It ruled that neither Proclamation No. 1801 nor PTA Circular No. 382 mentioned that lands in
[18]
Boracay were inalienable or could not be the subject of disposition.
The Circular itself
[19]
[20]
[21]
recognizedprivateownershipoflands.
ThetrialcourtcitedSections87
and53
of the
Public Land Act as basis for acknowledging private ownership of lands in Boracay and that only
[22]
thoseforestedareasinpubliclandsweredeclaredaspartoftheforestreserve.
[23]
The OSG moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.
The Republic then
appealedtotheCA.
On December 9, 2004, the appellate court affirmed in toto the RTC decision, disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us

[24]
DENYINGtheappealfiledinthiscaseandAFFIRMINGthedecisionofthelowercourt.
The CA held that respondentsclaimants could not be prejudiced by a declaration that the
landstheyoccupiedsincetimeimmemorialwerepartofaforestreserve.
[25]
Again, the OSG sought reconsideration but it was similarly denied.
Hence, the present
petitionunderRule45.
G.R.No.173775
On May 22, 2006, during the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, President Gloria MacapagalArroyo
[26]
issued Proclamation No. 1064
classifying Boracay Island into four hundred (400) hectares of
reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six hundred twentyeight and 96/100 (628.96)
5/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
hectaresofagriculturalland(alienableanddisposable).The Proclamation likewise provided for a

fifteenmeterbufferzoneoneachsideofthecenterlineofroadsandtrails,reservedforrightofway
andwhichshallformpartoftheareareservedforforestlandprotectionpurposes.
[27]
[28]
OnAugust10, 2006, petitionersclaimants Dr. Orlando Sacay,
Wilfredo Gelito,
and
[29]
other landowners
in Boracay filed with this Court an original petition for prohibition,
[30]
mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064.
They allege that the Proclamation
infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay. They have been in continued
possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time immemorial. They have also invested
billionsofpesosindevelopingtheirlandsandbuildinginternationallyrenownedfirstclassresorts
[31]
ontheirlots.
Petitionersclaimants contended that there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying

Boracay into agricultural land. Being classified as neither mineral nor timber land, the island is
deemed agricultural pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the first
[32]
PublicLandAct.
Thus,theirpossessionintheconceptofownerfortherequiredperiodentitled
themtojudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle.
Opposingthepetition,theOSGarguedthatpetitionersclaimantsdonothaveavestedright
overtheiroccupiedportionsintheisland.Boracayisanunclassifiedpublicforestlandpursuantto
Section3(a)ofPDNo.705.Beingpublicforest,theclaimedportionsoftheislandareinalienable
and cannot be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the executive
department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify lands of the public domain into
alienableanddisposablelands.Thereisaneedforapositivegovernmentactinordertoreleasethe
lotsfordisposition.
On November 21, 2006, this Court ordered the consolidation of the two petitions as they
[33]
principallyinvolvethesameissuesonthelandclassificationofBoracayIsland.
Issues
G.R.No.167707
6/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
TheOSGraisestheloneissueofwhetherProclamationNo.1801andPTACircularNo.382
pose any legal obstacle for respondents, and all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their
[34]
occupiedlandsinBoracayIsland.
G.R.No.173775
Petitionersclaimantshoistfive(5)issues,namely:
I.
AT THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHED POSSESSION OF PETITIONERS IN CONCEPT OF
OWNEROVERTHEIRRESPECTIVEAREASINBORACAY,SINCETIMEIMMEMORIALOR
AT THE LATEST SINCE 30 YRS. PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF ON NOV. 19, 1997, WERE THE AREAS OCCUPIED BY THEM
PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS DEFINED BY LAWS THEN ON JUDICIAL
CONFIRMATIONOFIMPERFECTTITLESORPUBLICFORESTASDEFINEDBYSEC.3a,PD
705?
II.
HAVE PETITIONERS OCCUPANTS ACQUIRED PRIOR VESTED RIGHT OF PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP OVER THEIR OCCUPIED PORTIONS OF BORACAY LAND, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT APPLIED YET FOR JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF
IMPERFECTTITLE?
III.
ISTHEEXECUTIVEDECLARATIONOFTHEIRAREASASALIENABLEANDDISPOSABLE
UNDER SEC 6, CA 141 [AN] INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE FOR PETITIONERS TO
OBTAINTITLEUNDERTHETORRENSSYSTEM?
IV.
ISTHEISSUANCEOFPROCLAMATION1064ONMAY22,2006,VIOLATIVEOFTHEPRIOR
VESTED RIGHTS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONERS OVER THEIR LANDS IN
BORACAY,PROTECTEDBYTHEDUEPROCESSCLAUSEOFTHECONSTITUTIONORIS
PROCLAMATION1064CONTRARYTOSEC.8,CA141,ORSEC.4(a)OFRA6657.
V.
CANRESPONDENTSBECOMPELLEDBYMANDAMUSTOALLOWTHESURVEYANDTO
APPROVETHESURVEYPLANSFORPURPOSESOFTHEAPPLICATIONFORTITLINGOF
[35]
THELANDSOFPETITIONERSINBORACAY?
(Underscoringsupplied)
In capsule, the main issue is whether private claimants (respondentsclaimants in G.R. No.
167707 and petitionersclaimants in G.R. No. 173775) have a right to secure titles over their
occupied portions in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right, if any, to judicial
confirmationofimperfecttitleunderCANo.141,asamended.Theydonotinvolvetheirrightto
7/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
securetitleunderotherpertinentlaws.
OurRuling
RegalianDoctrineandpoweroftheexecutive
toreclassifylandsofthepublicdomain
Private claimants rely on three (3) laws and executive acts in their bid for judicial
[36]
confirmationofimperfecttitle,namely:(a)PhilippineBillof1902
inrelationtoActNo.926,
later amended and/or superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141
[37]
(b) Proclamation No.
[38]
[39]
1801
issuedbythenPresidentMarcosand(c)ProclamationNo.1064
issuedbyPresident
Gloria MacapagalArroyo. We shall proceed to determine their rights to apply for judicial
confirmationofimperfecttitleundertheselawsandexecutiveacts.
Butfirst,apeekattheRegalianprincipleandthepoweroftheexecutivetoreclassifylandsof
thepublicdomain.
The1935Constitutionclassifiedlandsofthepublicdomainintoagricultural,forestortimber.
[40]
Meanwhile,the1973Constitutionprovidedthefollowingdivisions:agricultural,industrialor
commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other
[41]
[42]
classesasmaybeprovidedbylaw,
givingthegovernmentgreatleewayforclassification.
Then the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one addition:
[43]
[44]
nationalparks.
Ofthese,onlyagriculturallandsmaybealienated.
PriortoProclamationNo.
1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively classified
underanyofthesegranddivisions.Boracaywasanunclassifiedlandofthepublicdomain.
TheRegalianDoctrinedictatesthatalllandsofthepublicdomainbelongtotheState,thatthe
Stateisthesourceofanyassertedrighttoownershipoflandandchargedwiththeconservationof
[45]
such patrimony.
The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987
[46]
Constitutions.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
8/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
[47]
belongtotheState.
Thus,alllandsthathavenotbeenacquiredfromthegovernment,eitherby
[48]
purchaseorbygrant,belongtotheStateaspartoftheinalienablepublicdomain.
Necessarily,it
is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private
ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the
persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under
whattermstheymaybegrantedsuchprivilege,notexcludingtheplacingofobstaclesinthewayof
[49]
theirexerciseofwhatotherwisewouldbeordinaryactsofownership.
OurpresentlandlawtracesitsrootstotheRegalianDoctrine.UpontheSpanishconquestof
thePhilippines,ownershipofalllands,territoriesandpossessionsinthePhilippinespassedtothe
[50]
SpanishCrown.
TheRegaliandoctrinewasfirstintroducedinthePhilippinesthroughtheLaws
oftheIndiesandtheRoyalCedulas,whichlaidthefoundationthatalllandsthatwerenotacquired
[51]
fromtheGovernment,eitherbypurchaseorbygrant,belongtothepublicdomain.
TheLawsoftheIndieswasfollowedbytheLeyHipotecariaortheMortgageLawof1893.
The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as
[52]
possessoryclaims.
[53]
TheRoyalDecreeof1894ortheMauraLaw
partlyamendedtheSpanishMortgageLaw
and the Laws of the Indies. It established possessory information as the method of legalizing
[54]
possessionofvacantCrownland,undercertainconditionswhichweresetforthinsaiddecree.
[55]
UnderSection393oftheMauraLaw,aninformacionposesoriaorpossessoryinformationtitle,
whendulyinscribedintheRegistryofProperty,isconvertedintoatitleofownershiponlyafterthe
lapseoftwenty(20)yearsofuninterruptedpossessionwhichmustbeactual,public,andadverse,
[56]
[57]
fromthedateofitsinscription.
However,possessoryinformationtitlehadtobeperfected
one year after the promulgation of the Maura Law, or until April 17, 1895. Otherwise, the lands
[58]
wouldreverttotheState.
Insum,privateownershipoflandundertheSpanishregimecouldonlybefoundedonroyal
concessionswhichtookvariousforms,namely:(1)titulorealorroyalgrant(2)concesionespecial
9/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
orspecialgrant(3)composicionconelestadooradjustmenttitle(4)titulodecompraor title by
[59]
purchaseand(5)informacionposesoriaorpossessoryinformationtitle.
ThefirstlawgoverningthedispositionofpubliclandsinthePhilippinesunderAmericanrule
[60]
was embodied in the Philippine Bill of 1902.
By this law, lands of the public domain in the
Philippine Islands were classified into three (3) grand divisions, to wit: agricultural, mineral, and
[61]
timber or forest lands.
The act provided for, among others, the disposal of mineral lands by
[62]
meansofabsolutegrant(freeholdsystem)andbylease(leaseholdsystem).
Italsoprovidedthe
[63]
definition by exclusion of agricultural public lands.
Interpreting the meaning of agricultural
[64]
landsunderthePhilippineBillof1902,theCourtdeclaredinMapav.InsularGovernment:
xxxInotherwords,thatthephraseagriculturallandasusedinActNo.926meansthose
[65]
publiclandsacquiredfromSpainwhicharenottimberorminerallands.x x x
(Emphasis
Ours)
OnFebruary1,1903,thePhilippineLegislaturepassedActNo.496,otherwiseknownasthe
LandRegistrationAct.Theactestablishedasystemofregistrationbywhichrecordedtitlebecomes
[66]
absolute,indefeasible,andimprescriptible.ThisisknownastheTorrenssystem.
Concurrently,onOctober7,1903,thePhilippineCommissionpassedActNo.926,whichwas
the first Public Land Act. The Act introduced the homestead system and made provisions for
judicialandadministrativeconfirmationofimperfecttitlesandforthesaleorleaseofpubliclands.
It permitted corporations regardless of the nationality of persons owning the controlling stock to
[67]
leaseorpurchaselandsofthepublicdomain.
UndertheAct,open,continuous,exclusive,and
notoriouspossessionandoccupationofagriculturallandsforthenextten(10)yearsprecedingJuly
[68]
26,1904wassufficientforjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle.
OnNovember29,1919,ActNo.926wassupersededbyActNo.2874,otherwiseknownas
the second Public Land Act. This new, more comprehensive law limited the exploitation of
agriculturallandstoFilipinosandAmericansandcitizensofothercountrieswhichgaveFilipinos
thesameprivileges.Forjudicialconfirmationoftitle,possessionandoccupationenconceptodueo
10/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
[69]
sincetimeimmemorial,orsinceJuly26,1894,wasrequired.
After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, CA No. 141 amended Act No. 2874 on
December 1, 1936. To this day, CA No. 141, as amended, remains as the existing general law
governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and
[70]
[71]
minerallands,
andprivatelyownedlandswhichrevertedtotheState.
Section48(b)ofCANo.141retainedtherequirementunderActNo.2874ofpossessionand
occupationoflandsofthepublicdomainsincetimeimmemorialorsinceJuly26,1894. However,
[72]
this provision was superseded by RepublicAct (RA) No. 1942,
which provided for a simple
thirtyyear prescriptive period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The provision was last
[73]
amended by PD No. 1073,
which now provides for possession and occupation of the land
[74]
appliedforsinceJune12,1945,orearlier.
[75]
TheissuanceofPDNo.892
onFebruary16,1976discontinuedtheuseofSpanishtitles
[76]
asevidenceinlandregistrationproceedings.
Underthedecree,allholdersofSpanishtitlesor
grantsshouldapplyforregistrationoftheirlandsunderActNo.496withinsix(6)monthsfromthe
effectivity of the decree on February 16, 1976. Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered
[77]
lands
shallbegovernedbySection194oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,asamendedbyAct
No.3344.
On June 11, 1978,Act No. 496 was amended and updated by PD No. 1529, known as the
Property Registration Decree. It was enacted to codify the various laws relative to registration of
[78]
property.
ItgovernsregistrationoflandsundertheTorrenssystemaswellasunregisteredlands,
[79]
includingchattelmortgages.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a
[80]
positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation,
declassifying inalienable
[81]
publiclandintodisposablelandforagriculturalorotherpurposes.
Infact,Section8ofCANo.
11/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
141limitsalienableordisposablelandsonlytothoselandswhichhavebeenofficiallydelimitedand
[82]
classified.
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the
publicdomainisonthepersonapplyingforregistration(orclaimingownership),whomustprove
[83]
thatthelandsubjectoftheapplicationisalienableordisposable.
Toovercomethispresumption,
incontrovertibleevidencemustbeestablishedthatthelandsubjectoftheapplication(orclaim)is
[84]
alienableordisposable.
Theremuststillbeapositiveactdeclaringlandofthepublicdomainas
alienable and disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is
alienable,theapplicantmustestablishtheexistenceofapositiveactofthegovernmentsuchasa
presidential proclamation or an executive order an administrative action investigation reports of
[85]
BureauofLandsinvestigatorsandalegislativeactorastatute.
Theapplicantmayalsosecurea
certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required
[86]
numberofyearsisalienableanddisposable.
Inthecaseatbar,nosuchproclamation,executiveorder,administrativeaction,report,statute,
orcertificationwaspresentedtotheCourt.Therecordsarebereftofevidenceshowingthat,priorto
2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government
proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such wellnigh incontrovertible
evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private claimants were
alreadyopentodispositionbefore2006.Mattersoflandclassificationorreclassificationcannotbe
[87]
assumed.Theycallforproof.
Ankron and De Aldecoa did not make the whole of Boracay Island, or portions of it,
agriculturallands.PrivateclaimantspositthatBoracaywasalreadyanagriculturallandpursuantto
[88]
the old cases Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands (1919)
and De Aldecoa v. The
[89]
Insular Government (1909).
These cases were decided under the provisions of the Philippine
Billof1902andActNo.926.Thereisastatementintheseoldcasesthatintheabsenceofevidence
[90]
tothecontrary,thatineachcasethelandsareagriculturallandsuntilthecontraryisshown.
PrivateclaimantsrelianceonAnkronandDeAldecoaismisplaced.Thesecasesdidnothave
12/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
the effect of converting the whole of Boracay Island or portions of it into agricultural lands. It
should be stressed that the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 merely provided the manner
throughwhichlandregistrationcourtswouldclassifylandsofthepublicdomain.Whethertheland
wouldbeclassifiedastimber,mineral,oragriculturaldependedonproofpresentedineachcase.
AnkronandDeAldecoaweredecidedatatimewhenthePresidentofthePhilippineshadno
powertoclassifylandsofthepublicdomainintomineral,timber,andagricultural.Atthattime,the
courts were free to make corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested with
[91]
implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance of the evidence.
This was the
Courts ruling in Heirs of the Late Spouses Pedro S. Palanca and Soterranea Rafols Vda. De
[92]
Palancav.Republic,
inwhichitstated,throughJusticeAdolfoAzcuna,viz.:
xxxPetitionersfurthermoreinsistthataparticularlandneednotbeformallyreleasedbyan
actoftheExecutivebeforeitcanbedeemedopentoprivateownership,citingthecasesofRamosv.
DirectorofLandsandAnkronv.GovernmentofthePhilippineIslands.
xxxx
PetitionersrelianceuponRamosv.DirectorofLandsandAnkronv.Governmentismisplaced.
These cases were decided under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the first Public Land Act No. 926
enactedbythePhilippineCommissiononOctober7,1926,underwhichtherewasnolegalprovision
vestingintheChiefExecutiveorPresidentofthePhilippinesthepowertoclassifylandsofthepublic
domainintomineral,timberandagriculturalsothatthecourtsthenwerefreetomakecorresponding
classificationsinjusticiablecases,orwerevestedwithimplicitpowertodoso,dependinguponthe
[93]
preponderanceoftheevidence.
ToaidthecourtsinresolvinglandregistrationcasesunderActNo.926,itwasthennecessary
todeviseapresumptiononlandclassification.ThusevolvedthedictuminAnkron that the courts
havearighttopresume,intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,thatineachcasethelandsare
[94]
agriculturallandsuntilthecontraryisshown.
ButWecannotundulyexpandthepresumptioninAnkronandDeAldecoatoanargumentthat
all lands of the public domain had been automatically reclassified as disposable and alienable
agriculturallands.Bynostretchofimaginationdidthepresumptionconvertalllandsofthepublic
domainintoagriculturallands.
13/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
IfWeacceptthepositionofprivateclaimants,thePhilippineBillof1902andActNo.926
wouldhaveautomaticallymadealllandsinthePhilippines,exceptthosealreadyclassifiedastimber
ormineralland,alienableanddisposablelands.ThatwouldtaketheselandsoutofStateownership
andworse,wouldbeutterlyinconsistentwithandtotallyrepugnanttothelongentrenchedRegalian
doctrine.
ThepresumptioninAnkronandDeAldecoaattachesonlytolandregistrationcasesbrought
under the provisions of Act No. 926, or more specifically those cases dealing with judicial and
administrativeconfirmationofimperfecttitles.Thepresumptionappliestoanapplicantforjudicial
or administrative conformation of imperfect title under Act No. 926. It certainly cannot apply to
landowners, such as private claimants or their predecessorsininterest, who failed to avail
themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them, their land remained unclassified and, by
virtueoftheRegaliandoctrine,continuedtobeownedbytheState.
Inanycase,theassumptioninAnkronandDeAldecoawasnotabsolute.Landclassification
was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was proof that the land was better suited for non
agriculturaluses,thecourtscouldadjudgeitasamineralortimberlanddespitethepresumption.In
Ankron,thisCourtstated:
InthecaseofJocsonvs.DirectorofForestry(supra),theAttorneyGeneraladmittedineffect
thatwhethertheparticularlandinquestionbelongstooneclassoranotherisaquestionoffact.The
mere fact that a tract of land has trees upon it or has mineral within it is not of itself sufficient to
declarethatoneisforestrylandandtheother,mineralland.Theremustbesomeproofoftheextent
and present or future value of the forestry and of the minerals. While, as we have just said, many
definitionshavebeengivenforagriculture,forestry,andminerallands,andthatineachcaseitisa
questionoffact,wethinkitissafetosaythatinordertobeforestryorminerallandtheproofmust
showthatitismorevaluablefortheforestryorthemineralwhichitcontainsthanitisforagricultural
purposes.(Sec.7,ActNo.1148.)Itisnotsufficienttoshowthatthereexistssometreesupontheland
orthatitbearssomemineral.Landmaybeclassifiedasforestryormineraltoday,and,byreasonof
theexhaustionofthetimberormineral,beclassifiedasagriculturallandtomorrow.Andviceversa,
by reason of the rapid growth of timber or the discovery of valuable minerals, lands classified as
agricultural today may be differently classified tomorrow. Each case must be decided upon the
proofinthatparticularcase,havingregardforitspresentorfuturevalueforoneortheother
purposes.We believe, however, considering the fact that it is a matter of public knowledge that a
majority of the lands in the Philippine Islands are agricultural lands that the courts have a right to
presume,intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,thatineachcasethelandsareagriculturallands
untilthecontraryisshown.Whateverthelandinvolvedinaparticularlandregistrationcaseis
forestry or mineral land must, therefore, be a matter of proof. Its superior value for one
purposeortheotherisaquestionoffacttobesettledbytheproofineachparticularcase.The
factthatthelandisamanglar[mangroveswamp]isnotsufficientforthecourtstodecidewhetherit
isagricultural,forestry,ormineralland.Itmayperchancebelongtooneortheotherofsaidclassesof
land. The Government, in the first instance, under the provisions of Act No. 1148, may, by
reservation, decide for itself what portions of public land shall be considered forestry land, unless
privateinterestshaveintervenedbeforesuchreservationismade.Inthelattercase,whethertheland
isagricultural,forestry,ormineral,isaquestionofproof.Untilprivateinterestshaveintervened,the
14/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
Government,byvirtueofthetermsofsaidAct(No.1148),maydecideforitselfwhatportionsofthe
public domain shall be set aside and reserved as forestry or mineral land. (Ramos vs. Director of
[95]
Lands,39Phil.175Jocsonvs.DirectorofForestry,supra)
(Emphasisours)
Since1919,courtswerenolongerfreetodeterminetheclassificationoflandsfromthefacts
[96]
ofeachcase,exceptthosethathavealreadybecameprivatelands.
ActNo.2874, promulgated
in1919andreproducedinSection6ofCANo.141,gavetheExecutiveDepartment,throughthe
President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or
disposable,mineralorforest.96aSincethen,courtsnolongerhadtheauthority,whetherexpressor
[97]
implied,todeterminetheclassificationoflandsofthepublicdomain.
Here,privateclaimants,unliketheHeirsofCiriacoTirolwhowereissuedtheirtitlein1933,
[98]
did not present a justiciable case for determination by the land registration court of the
propertyslandclassification.Simplyput,therewasnoopportunityforthecourtsthentoresolveif
thelandtheBoracayoccupantsarenowclaimingwereagriculturallands.WhenActNo.926was
supplantedbyActNo.2874in1919,withoutanapplicationforjudicialconfirmationhavingbeen
filedbyprivateclaimantsortheirpredecessorsininterest,thecourtswerenolongerauthorizedto
determinethepropertyslandclassification.Hence,privateclaimantscannotbankonActNo.926.
[99]
We note that the RTC decision
in G.R. No. 167707 mentioned Krivenko v. Register of
[100]
DeedsofManila,
whichwasdecidedin1947whenCANo.141,vestingtheExecutivewith
thesolepowertoclassifylandsofthepublicdomainwasalreadyineffect.Krivenkocitedtheold
[101]
[102]
casesMapav.InsularGovernment,
DeAldecoav.TheInsularGovernment,
andAnkron
[103]
v.GovernmentofthePhilippineIslands.
Krivenko, however, is not controlling here because it involved a totally different issue.The
pertinentissueinKrivenkowaswhetherresidentiallotswereincludedinthegeneralclassification
ofagriculturallandsandifso,whetheranaliencouldacquirearesidentiallot.ThisCourtruledthat
[104]
as an alien, Krivenko was prohibited by the 1935 Constitution
from acquiring agricultural
land, which included residential lots. Here, the issue is whether unclassified lands of the public
domainareautomaticallydeemedagricultural.
15/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
Notably, the definition of agricultural public lands mentioned in Krivenko relied on the old
[105]
casesdecidedpriortotheenactmentofActNo.2874,includingAnkronandDe Aldecoa.
As
Wehavealreadystated,thosecasescannotapplyhere,sincetheyweredecidedwhentheExecutive
didnothavetheauthoritytoclassifylandsasagricultural,timber,ormineral.
PrivateclaimantscontinuedpossessionunderActNo.926doesnotcreateapresumption
thatthelandisalienable.Privateclaimantsalsocontendthattheircontinuedpossessionofportions
[106]
of Boracay Island for the requisite period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926
ipso facto
convertedtheislandintoprivateownership.Hence,theymayapplyforatitleintheirname.
[107]
AsimilarargumentwassquarelyrejectedbytheCourtinColladov.CourtofAppeals.
Collado,citingtheseparateopinionofnowChiefJusticeReynatoS.PunoinCruzv.Secretaryof
EnvironmentandNaturalResources,107aruled:
Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the
provisionsofthePhilippineBillof1902.Thelawgovernedthedispositionoflandsof
thepublicdomain.Itprescribedrulesandregulationsforthehomesteading,sellingand
leasingofportionsofthepublicdomainofthePhilippineIslands,andprescribedthe
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 andgrantsin theIslands.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 governments title to public land sprung from the Treaty of
Paris and other subsequent treaties between Spain and the United States. The term
publiclandreferredtoalllandsofthepublicdomainwhosetitlestillremainedinthe
governmentandarethrownopentoprivateappropriationandsettlement,andexcluded
thepatrimonialpropertyofthegovernmentandthefriarlands.
Thus,itisplainerrorforpetitionerstoarguethatunderthePhilippineBillof1902andPublic
LandActNo.926,merepossessionbyprivateindividualsoflandscreatesthelegalpresumption
[108]
thatthelandsarealienableanddisposable.
(EmphasisOurs)
Exceptforlandsalreadycoveredbyexistingtitles,Boracaywasanunclassifiedlandofthe
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public
[109]
forest under PD No. 705. The DENR
and the National Mapping and Resource Information
[110]
Authority
certifythatBoracayIslandisanunclassifiedlandofthepublicdomain.
PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public
16/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
domainaspublicforest.Section3(a)ofPDNo.705definesapublicforestasamassoflandsofthe
public domain which has not been the subject of the present system of classification for the
determination of which lands are needed for forest purpose and which are not. Applying PD No.
705, all unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered public
forests.PDNo.705,however,respectstitlesalreadyexistingpriortoitseffectivity.
The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest land under PD No. 705 may
seemtobeoutoftouchwiththepresentrealitiesintheisland.Boracay,nodoubt,hasbeenpartly
stripped of its forest cover to pave the way for commercial developments. As a premier tourist
destinationforlocalandforeigntourists,Boracayappearsmoreofacommercialislandresort,rather
thanaforestland.
Nevertheless,thattheoccupantsofBoracayhavebuiltmultimillionpesobeachresortsonthe
[111]
island
thattheislandhasalreadybeenstrippedofitsforestcoverorthattheimplementation
ofProclamationNo.1064willdestroytheislandstourismindustry,donotnegateitscharacteras
publicforest.
[112]
Forests,inthecontextofboththePublicLandActandtheConstitution
classifyinglands
ofthepublicdomainintoagricultural,forestortimber,minerallands,andnationalparks,donot
necessarilyrefertolargetractsofwoodedlandorexpansescoveredbydensegrowthsoftreesand
[113]
[114]
underbrushes.
The discussion in Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry
is
particularlyinstructive:
Aforestedareaclassifiedasforestlandofthepublicdomaindoesnotlosesuchclassification
simplybecauseloggersorsettlersmayhavestrippeditofitsforestcover.Parcelsoflandclassifiedas
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
coveredbymangrovetrees,nipapalms,andothertreesgrowinginbrackishorseawatermayalsobe
classifiedasforestland.Theclassificationisdescriptiveofitslegalnatureorstatusanddoesnot
havetobedescriptiveofwhatthelandactuallylookslike.Unlessanduntilthelandclassifiedas
forestisreleasedinanofficialproclamationtothateffectsothatitmayformpartofthedisposable
[115]
agriculturallandsofthepublicdomain,therulesonconfirmationofimperfecttitledonotapply.
(Emphasissupplied)
There is a big difference between forest as defined in a dictionary and forest or timber land as a
classificationoflandsofthepublicdomainasappearinginourstatutes.Oneisdescriptiveofwhat
[116]
appearsonthelandwhiletheotherisalegalstatus,aclassificationforlegalpurposes.
Atany
17/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
rate, the Court is tasked to determine the legal status of Boracay Island, and not look into its
physicallayout.Hence,evenifitsforestcoverhasbeenreplacedbybeachresorts,restaurantsand
other commercial establishments, it has not been automatically converted from public forest to
alienableagriculturalland.
PrivateclaimantscannotrelyonProclamationNo.1801asbasisforjudicialconfirmation
ofimperfecttitle.TheproclamationdidnotconvertBoracayintoanagriculturalland.However,
privateclaimantsarguethatProclamationNo.1801issuedbythenPresidentMarcosin1978entitles
themtojudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle.TheProclamationclassifiedBoracay,amongother
islands,asatouristzone.Privateclaimantsassertthat,asatouristspot,theislandissusceptibleof
privateownership.
ProclamationNo.1801orPTACircularNo.382didnotconvertthewholeofBoracayinto
an agricultural land. There is nothing in the law or the Circular which made Boracay Island an
[117]
agricultural land. The reference in Circular No. 382 to private lands
and areas declared as
[118]
alienable and disposable
does not by itself classify the entire island as agricultural. Notably,
Circular No. 382 makes reference not only to private lands and areas but also to public forested
lands.RuleVIII,Section3provides:
No trees in forested private lands may be cut without prior authority from the PTA. All
forestedareasinpubliclandsaredeclaredforestreserves.(Emphasissupplied)
Clearly,thereferenceintheCirculartobothprivateandpubliclandsmerelyrecognizesthat
theislandcanbeclassifiedbytheExecutivedepartmentpursuanttoitspowersunderCANo.141.
Infact,Section5oftheCircularrecognizesthethenBureauofForestDevelopmentsauthorityto
declareareasintheislandasalienableanddisposablewhenitprovides:
Subsistence farming, in areas declared as alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forest
Development.
Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify
BoracayIslandasalienableanddisposableland.IfPresidentMarcosintendedtoclassifytheisland
asalienableanddisposableorforest,orboth,hewouldhaveidentifiedthespecificlimitsofeach,as
PresidentArroyodidinProclamationNo.1064.ThiswasnotdoneinProclamationNo.1801.
The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801 also explain the rationale behind the
18/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
declarationofBoracayIsland,togetherwithotherislands,cavesandpeninsulasinthePhilippines,
as a tourist zone and marine reserve to be administered by the PTA to ensure the concentrated
effortsofthepublicandprivatesectorsinthedevelopmentoftheareastourismpotentialwithdue
regardforecologicalbalanceinthemarineenvironment.Simplyput,theproclamationisaimedat
administering the islands for tourism and ecological purposes. It does not address the areas
[119]
alienability.
Moreimportantly,ProclamationNo.1801coversnotonlyBoracayIsland,butsixtyfour(64)
other islands, coves, and peninsulas in the Philippines, such as Fortune and Verde Islands in
Batangas,PortGalerainOrientalMindoro,PanglaoandBalicasagIslandsinBohol,CoronIsland,
Puerto Princesa and surrounding areas in Palawan, Camiguin Island in Cagayan de Oro, and
Misamis Oriental, to name a few. If the designation of Boracay Island as tourist zone makes it
alienableanddisposablebyvirtueofProclamationNo.1801,alltheotherareasmentionedwould
likewise be declared wide open for private disposition. That could not have been, and is clearly
beyond,theintentoftheproclamation.
It was Proclamation No. 1064 of 2006 which positively declared part of Boracay as
[120]
alienableandopenedthesametoprivateownership.Sections6and7ofCANo.141
provide
thatitisonlythePresident,upontherecommendationoftheproperdepartmenthead,whohasthe
authoritytoclassifythelandsofthepublicdomainintoalienableordisposable,timberandmineral
[121]
lands.
InissuingProclamationNo.1064,PresidentGloriaMacapagalArroyomerelyexercisedthe
authoritygrantedtohertoclassifylandsofthepublicdomain,presumablysubjecttoexistingvested
rights. Classification of public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department,
[122]
through the Office of the President. Courts have no authority to do so.
Absent such
[123]
classification,thelandremainsunclassifieduntilreleasedandrenderedopentodisposition.
Proclamation No. 1064 classifies Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and
628.96hectaresofagriculturalland.TheProclamationlikewiseprovidesfora15meterbufferzone
oneachsideofthecenterlineofroadsandtrails,whicharereservedforrightofwayandwhich
shallformpartoftheareareservedforforestlandprotectionpurposes.
Contrary to private claimants argument, there was nothing invalid or irregular, much less
unconstitutional, about the classification of Boracay Island made by the President through
19/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
ProclamationNo.1064.Itwaswithinherauthoritytomakesuchclassification,subjecttoexisting
vestedrights.
ProclamationNo.1064doesnotviolatetheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw.Private
claimants further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates the provision of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring conversion of public forests into
agricultural lands. They claim that since Boracay is a public forest under PD No. 705, President
ArroyocannolongerconvertitintoanagriculturallandwithoutrunningafoulofSection4(a)of
RANo.6657,thus:
SEC.4.Scope.TheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof1988shallcover,regardlessof
tenurialarrangementandcommodityproduced,allpublicandprivateagriculturallandsasprovidedin
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain
suitableforagriculture.
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program:
(a)Allalienableanddisposablelandsofthepublicdomaindevotedtoorsuitablefor
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands
shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into
account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have
determinedbylaw,thespecificlimitsofthepublicdomain.
That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under PD No. 705 did not bar the
Executive from later converting it into agricultural land. Boracay Island still remained an
unclassifiedlandofthepublicdomaindespitePDNo.705.
[124]
InHeirsoftheLateSpousesPedroS.PalancaandSoterraneaRafolsv.Republic,
the
Courtstatedthatunclassifiedlandsarepublicforests.
While it is true that the land classification map does not categorically state that the
islandsarepublicforests,thefactthattheywereunclassifiedlandsleadstothesameresult.In
the absence of the classification as mineral or timber land, the land remains unclassified land until
[125]
releasedandrenderedopentodisposition.
(Emphasissupplied)
Moreover, the prohibition under the CARL applies only to a reclassification of land. If the
land had never been previously classified, as in the case of Boracay, there can be no prohibited
[126]
reclassificationundertheagrarianlaw.WeagreewiththeopinionoftheDepartmentofJustice
20/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
onthispoint:
Indeed,thekeywordtothecorrectapplicationoftheprohibitioninSection4(a)istheword
reclassification.Wheretherehasbeennopreviousclassificationofpublicforest[referring,werepeat,
tothemassofthepublicdomainwhichhasnotbeenthesubjectofthepresentsystemofclassification
forpurposesofdeterminingwhichareneededforforestpurposesandwhicharenot]intopermanent
forestorforestreservesorsomeotherforestusesundertheRevisedForestryCode,therecanbeno
reclassificationofforestlandstospeakofwithinthemeaningofSection4(a).
Thus, obviously, the prohibition in Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification of
forestlandstoagriculturallandswithoutapriorlawdelimitingthelimitsofthepublicdomain,does
not, and cannot, apply to those lands of the public domain, denominated as public forest under the
RevisedForestryCode,whichhavenotbeenpreviouslydetermined,orclassified,asneededforforest
[127]
purposesinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheRevisedForestryCode.
Privateclaimantsarenotentitledtoapplyforjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitleunder
CANo.141.Neitherdotheyhavevestedrightsovertheoccupiedlandsunderthesaidlaw.There
are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141,
namely: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject
landbyhimselforthroughhispredecessorsininterestunderabonafideclaimofownershipsince
time immemorial or from June 12, 1945 and (2) the classification of the land as alienable and
[128]
disposablelandofthepublicdomain.
Asdiscussed,thePhilippineBillof1902,ActNo.926,andProclamationNo.1801didnot
convert portions of Boracay Island into an agricultural land. The island remained an unclassified
landofthepublicdomainand,applyingtheRegaliandoctrine,isconsideredStateproperty.
Privateclaimantsbidforjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle,relyingonthePhilippineBill
of1902,ActNo.926,andProclamationNo.1801,mustfailbecauseoftheabsenceofthesecond
elementofalienableanddisposableland.Theirentitlementtoagovernmentgrantunderourpresent
Public Land Act presupposes that the land possessed and applied for is already alienable and
[129]
disposable.Thisisclearfromthewordingofthelawitself.
Wherethelandisnotalienableand
disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory
[130]
rights.
Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under
Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were classified as agricultural lands.
Private claimants failed to prove the first element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
21/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
possessionoftheirlandsinBoracaysinceJune12,1945.
We cannot sustain the CA and RTC conclusion in the petition for declaratory relief that
privateclaimantscompliedwiththerequisiteperiodofpossession.
The tax declarations in the name of private claimants are insufficient to prove the first
element of possession. We note that the earliest of the tax declarations in the name of private
claimants were issued in 1993. Being of recent dates, the tax declarations are not sufficient to
convincethisCourtthattheperiodofpossessionandoccupationcommencedonJune12,1945.
PrivateclaimantsinsistthattheyhaveavestedrightinBoracay,havingbeeninpossessionof
the island for a long time. They have invested millions of pesos in developing the island into a
tourist spot. They say their continued possession and investments give them a vested right which
cannotbeunilaterallyrescindedbyProclamationNo.1064.
The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not

automaticallygivethemavestedrightinBoracay.Nordothesegivethemarighttoapplyforatitle
tothelandtheyarepresentlyoccupying.ThisCourtisconstitutionallyboundtodecidecasesbased
on the evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law and jurisprudence stand, private
claimantsareineligibletoapplyforajudicialconfirmationoftitleovertheiroccupiedportionsin
Boracayevenwiththeircontinuedpossessionandconsiderableinvestmentintheisland.
OneLastNote
TheCourtisawarethatmillionsofpesoshavebeeninvestedforthedevelopmentofBoracay
Island,makingitabywordinthelocalandinternationaltourismindustry.TheCourtalsonotesthat
for a number of years, thousands of people have called the island their home. While the Court
commiserateswithprivateclaimantsplight,Weareboundtoapplythelawstrictlyandjudiciously.
Thisisthelawanditshouldprevail.Itoangbatasatitoangdapatumiral.
All is not lost, however, for private claimants. While they may not be eligible to apply for
judicialconfirmationofimperfecttitleunderSection48(b)ofCANo.141,asamended,thisdoes
notdenotetheirautomaticousterfromtheresidential,commercial,andotherareastheypossessnow
classified as agricultural. Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial investments on their
occupiedalienablelands.Lackoftitledoesnotnecessarilymeanlackofrighttopossess.
22/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of
improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For another, they may
[131]
look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead
or
[132]
salespatent,
subjecttotheconditionsimposedbylaw.
More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private claimants to acquire title to
theiroccupiedlotsortoexemptthemfromcertainrequirementsunderthepresentlandlaws.There
[133]
isonesuchbill
nowpendingintheHouseofRepresentatives.Whetherthatbillorasimilarbill
willbecomealawisforCongresstodecide.
InissuingProclamationNo.1064,thegovernmenthastakenthestepnecessarytoopenupthe
islandtoprivateownership.Thisgesturemaynotbesufficienttoappeasesomesectorswhichview
theclassificationoftheislandpartiallyintoaforestreserveasabsurd.Thattheislandisnolonger
overrunbytrees,however,doesnotbecloudthevisiontoprotectitsremainingforestcoverandto
strikeahealthybalancebetweenprogressandecology.Ecological conservation is as important as
economicprogress.
To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their promotion and
protectionarenotjustfancyrhetoricforpoliticiansandactivists.Theseareneedsthatbecomemore
urgentasdestructionofourenvironmentgetsprevalentanddifficulttocontrol.As aptly observed
[134]
byJusticeConradoSanchezin1968inDirectorofForestryv.Munoz:
TheviewthisCourttakesofthecasesatbarisbutinadherencetopublicpolicythatshouldbe
followed with respect to forest lands. Many have written much, and many more have spoken, and
quiteoften,aboutthepressingneedforforestpreservation,conservation,protection,developmentand
reforestation.Notwithoutjustification.For,forestsconstituteavitalsegmentofanycountry'snatural
resources.Itisofcommonknowledgebynowthatabsenceofthenecessarygreencoveronourlands
producesanumberofadverseorilleffectsofseriousproportions.Withoutthetrees,watershedsdry
up rivers and lakes which they supply are emptied of their contents. The fish disappear. Denuded
areasbecomedustbowls.Aswaterfallsceasetofunction,sowillhydroelectricplants.Withtherains,
thefertiletopsoiliswashedawaygeologicalerosionresults.Witherosioncomethedreadedfloods
thatwreakhavocanddestructiontopropertycrops,livestock,houses,andhighwaysnottomention
precious human lives. Indeed, the foregoing observations should be written down in a lumbermans
[135]
decalogue.
WHEREFORE,judgmentisrenderedasfollows:
1. The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 167707 is GRANTED and the Court of Appeals
23/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
DecisioninCAG.R.CVNo.71118REVERSEDANDSETASIDE.
2.ThepetitionforcertiorariinG.R.No.173775isDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGCONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIOMA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
(Onofficialleave)
RENATOC.CORONACONCHITACARPIOMORALES
ADOLFOS.AZCUNADANTEO.TINGA
24/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOPRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
(Nopart)
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURATERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterofthe
opinionoftheCourt.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
*OnofficialleaveperSpecialOrderNo.520datedSeptember19,2008.
**Nopart.JusticeNachuraparticipatedinthepresentcaseasSolicitorGeneral.
[1]
Rollo(G.R.No.167707),pp.3743.CAG.R.CVNo.71118,promulgatedonDecember9,2004.PennedbyAssociateJusticeIsaiasP.
Dicdican,withAssociateJusticesSesinandoE.VillonandRamonM.Bato,Jr.,concurring.
[2]
Id.at4754AnnexC.Spl.CivilCaseNo.5403.PennedbyJudgeNiovadyM.Marin,RTC,Kalibo,Branch5.
[3]
Rollo(G.R.No.173775),pp.101114.AnnexF.ClassifyingBoracayIslandSituatedintheMunicipalityofMalay,ProvinceofAklan
IntoForestland(ProtectionPurposes)andIntoAgriculturalLand(AlienableandDisposable)PursuanttoPresidentialDecreeeNo.705
(RevisedForestryReformCodeofthePhilippines).IssuedonMay22,2006.
[4]
Asoftheyear2000.http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru6/boracay.htm.
[5]
ManocManoc,Balabag,andYapak.http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru6/boracay.htm.
[6]
UnderSurveyPlanNo.NR06000001.
[7]
Rollo(G.R.No.167707),p.49.
25/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
[8]
Id.at2123AnnexB.DeclaringCertainIslands,Coves,andPeninsulasinthePhilippinesasTouristZonesandMarineReservesUnder
theAdministrationandControlofthePhilippineTourismAuthority.
[9]
Id.at2427.RulesandRegulationsGoverningActivitiesatBoracayIslandTouristZone.
[10]
Records,pp.1332AnnexesAtoA18.
[11]
IssuedonMay19,1975.
[12]
Records,p.148.
[13]
Id.
[14]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule129,Sec.2.
[15]
Records,p.148.
[16]
Id.at177,178.
[17]
Rollo(G.R.No.167707),p.54.
[18]
Id.at51.
[19]
Id.PTACircularNo.382,RuleVIII,Sec.1(3)states:
No trees in forested private lands may be cut without prior authority from the PTA. All forested areas in public lands are
declaredforestreserves.
[20]
Sec.87.IfallthelandsincludedintheproclamationofthePresidentarenotregisteredundertheLandRegistrationAct,theSolicitor
General,ifrequestedtodosobytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources,shallproceedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof
sectionfiftythreeofthisAct.
[21]
Sec.53.ItshallbelawfulfortheDirectorofLands,wheneverintheopinionofthePresidentthepublicinterestsshallrequireit,to
causetobefiledintheproperCourtofFirstInstance,throughtheSolicitorGeneralortheofficeractinginhisstead,apetitionagainstthe
holder,claimant,possessor,oroccupantofanylandwhoshallnothavevoluntarilycomeinundertheprovisionsofthischapterorofthe
LandRegistrationAct,statinginsubstancethatthetitleofsuchholder,claimant,possessor,oroccupantisopentodiscussionorthatthe
boundariesofanysuchlandwhichhasnotbeenbroughtintocourtasaforesaidareopentoquestionorthatitisadvisablethatthetitleto
suchlandbesettledandadjudicated,andprayingthatthetitletoanysuchlandortheboundariesthereofortherighttooccupancythereof
besettledandadjudicated.Thejudicialproceedingsunderthissectionshallbeinaccordancewiththelawsonadjudicationoftitlein
cadastralproceedings.
[22]
Rollo(G.R.No.167707),p.51.
[23]
Id.at211121.
[24]
Id.at42.
[25]
Id.at4546.
[26]
Supranote3.
[27]
OwnerofWalingWalingBeachResortandChairmanoftheBoardofBoracayFoundation,Inc.
[28]
OwnerofWillysBeachResort.
[29]
Rollo(G.R.No.173775),p.20AnnexA.
[30]
PetitionersinG.R.No.173775claimthattheyarealsopetitionersinthedeclaratorycasefiledinNovember1997beforetheRTCin
Kalibo,Aklan,docketedasSp.CivilCaseNo.5403andnowbeforethisCourtasG.R.No.167707.
[31]
Rollo(G.RNo.173775),pp.45.
[32]
Id.at4.
[33]
Id.at143.
[34]
Rollo(G.R.No.167707),p.26.
[35]
Rollo(G.R.No.173775),pp.280281.
[36]
AnActTemporarilytoProvidefortheAdministrationoftheAffairsofCivilGovernmentinthePhilippineIslands,andforOther
Purposes.IssuedonJuly1,1902.
[37]
AnActtoAmendandCompiletheLawsRelativetoLandsofthePublicDomain.ApprovedonDecember1,1936.
26/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
[38]
Seenote8.
[39]
Seenote3.
[40]
CONSTITUTION(1935),Art.XIII,Sec.1.
[41]
CONSTITUTION(1973),Art.XIV,Sec.10.
[42]
Bernas,S.J.,TheIntentofthe1986ConstitutionWriters,1995ed.,p.830.
[43]
CONSTITUTION(1987),Art.XII,Sec.3.
[44]
Id.
[45]
Zaratev.DirectorofLands,G.R.No.131501,July14,2004,434SCRA322Reyesv.CourtofAppeals,356Phil.606,624(1998).
[46]
Chavezv.PublicEstatesAuthority,G.R.No.133250,July9,2002,384SCRA152.
[47]
Zaratev.DirectorofLands,supraColladov.CourtofAppeals, G.R. No. 107764, October4,2002, 390 SCRA 343 Director of
Landsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.73246,March2,1993,219SCRA339.
[48]
Republicv.Estonilo,G.R.No.157306,November25,2005,476SCRA265Zaratev.DirectorofLands,supra.
[49]
DelosReyesv.Ramolete,G.R.No.L47331,June21,1983,122SCRA652,citingGonzagav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L27455,
June28,1973,51SCRA381.
[50]
Colladov.CourtofAppeals,supra,citingChavezv.PublicEstatesAuthority,supra.
[51]
Id.,citingseparateopinionofthenJusticeReynatoS.PunoinCruzv.SecretaryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,G.R.No.
135385,December6,2000,347SCRA128,andChavezv.PublicEstatesAuthority,supranote46.
[52]
Colladov.CourtofAppeals,supranote47.
[53]
EffectiveFebruary13,1894.
[54]
DeAldecoav.TheInsularGovernment,13Phil.159(1909).
[55]
Avalidtitlebaseduponadversepossessionoravalidtitlebaseduponprescription.Noblejas,A.H.andNoblejas,E.H.,Registration
ofLandTitlesandDeeds,1986ed.,p.39,citingCruzv.DeLeon,21Phil.199(1912).
[56]
Ten(10)years,accordingtoArchbishopofManilav.Arnedo,30Phil.593(1915).
[57]
Noblejas,A.H.andNoblejas,E.H.,RegistrationofLandTitlesandDeeds,supraat8.
[58]
Id.at9DirectorofForestAdministrationv.Fernandez,G.R.Nos.36827,56622&70076,December10,1990,192SCRA121,137.
[59]
Id.at511.
[60]
Seenote36.
[61]
DirectorofForestryv.Villareal,G.R.No.L32266,February27,1989,170SCRA598,601.
[62]
Noblejas,A.H.andNoblejas,E.H.,RegistrationofLandTitlesandDeeds,supranote55,at347.
[63]
Theprovisionsrelevanttothedefinitionare:
Sec.13.ThattheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslands,subjecttotheprovisionsofthisActandexceptashereinprovided,
shallclassifyaccordingtoitsagriculturalcharacterandproductiveness,andshallimmediatelymakerulesandregulationsfor
thelease,sale,orotherdispositionofthepubliclandsotherthantimberorminerallands,butsuchrulesandregulationsshall
notgointoeffectorhavetheforceoflawuntiltheyhavereceivedtheapprovalofthePresident,andwhenapprovedbythe
President they shall be submitted by him to Congress at the beginning of the next ensuing session thereof and unless
disapprovedoramendedbyCongressatsaidsessiontheyshallatthecloseofsuchperiodhavetheforceandeffectoflawinthe
PhilippineIslands:Provided,Thatasinglehomesteadentryshallnotexceedsixteenhectaresinextent.
Sec.14.ThattheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslandsisherebyauthorizedandempoweredtoenactrulesandregulationsand
toprescribetermsandconditionstoenablepersonstoperfecttheirtitletopubliclandsinsaidIslands,who,priortothetransfer
ofsovereigntyfromSpaintotheUnitedStates,hadfulfilledallorsomeoftheconditionsrequiredbytheSpanishlawsandroyal
decrees of the Kingdom of Spain for the acquisition of legal title thereto, yet failed to secure conveyance of title and the
PhilippineCommissionisauthorizedtoissuepatents,withoutcompensation,toanynativeofsaidIslands,conveyingtitleto
anytractoflandnotmorethansixteenhectaresinextent,whichwerepubliclandsandhadbeenactuallyoccupiedbysuch
nativeorhisancestorspriortoandonthethirteenthofAugust,eighteenhundredandninetyeight.
Sec.15.ThattheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslandsisherebyauthorizedandempowered,onsuchtermsasitmayprescribe,
bygenerallegislation,toprovideforthegrantingorsaleandconveyancetoactualoccupantsandsettlersandothercitizensof
said Islands such parts and portions of the public domain, other than timber and mineral lands, of the United States in said
27/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
Islandsasitmaydeemwise,notexceedingsixteenhectarestoanyonepersonandforthesaleandconveyanceofnotmorethan
onethousandandtwentyfourhectarestoanycorporationorassociationofpersons:Provided,Thatthegrantorsaleofsuch
lands, whether the purchase price be paid at once or in partial payments, shall be conditioned upon actual and continued
occupancy,improvement,andcultivationofthepremisessoldforaperiodofnotlessthanfiveyears,duringwhichtimethe
purchaserorgranteecannotalienateorencumbersaidlandorthetitletheretobutsuchrestrictionshallnotapplytotransfersof
rightsandtitleofinheritanceunderthelawsforthedistributionoftheestatesofdecedents.
[64]
10Phil.175(1908).
[65]
Id.at182.
[66]
Colladov.CourtofAppeals,supranote47.
[67]
Noblejas,A.H.andNoblejas,E.H.,RegistrationofLandTitlesandDeeds,supranote55.
[68]
Sec.54,par.6.
[69]
Sec.45(b)PublicEstatesAuthorityv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.112172,November20,2000,345SCRA96DirectorofLandsv.
Buyco,G.R.No.91189,November27,1992,216SCRA78.
[70]
Colladov.CourtofAppeals,supranote47,seeseparateopinionofJusticePunoinCruzv.SecretaryofEnvironmentandNatural
Resources,supranote51,andChavezv.PublicEstatesAuthority,supranote46.
[71]
Sec.2.
[72]
AnAct to Amend Subsection (b) of Section FortyEight of Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred FortyOne, Otherwise
KnownasthePublicLandAct.ApprovedonJune22,1957.
[73]
ExtendingthePeriodofFilingApplicationsforAdministrativeLegislation(FreePatent)andJudicialConfirmationofImperfectand
IncompleteTitlestoAlienableandDisposableLandsinthePublicDomainUnderChapterVIIandChapterVIIIofCommonwealthAct
No.141,AsAmended,ForEleven(11)YearsCommencingJanuary1,1977.ApprovedonJanuary25,1977.
[74]
Republicv.Doldol,G.R.No.132963,September10,1998,295SCRA359.
[75]
DiscontinuanceoftheSpanishMortgageSystemofRegistrationandoftheUseofSpanishTitlesasEvidenceinLandRegistration
Proceedings(IssuedFebruary16,1976).
[76]
DirectorofForestAdministrationv.Fernandez,supranote58,citingDirectorofLandsv.Rivas, G.R. No. L61539, February 14,
1986,141SCRA329.
[77]
LandswhichwerenotrecordedundertheMauraLawandwerenotyetcoveredbyTorrenstitles.
[78]
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529,PreambleDirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote47.
[79]
Pea,N.andPea,Jr.,N.,RegistrationofLandTitlesandDeeds,1988ed.,p.9.
[80]
Republicv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.48227,August21,1991,201SCRA1DirectorofLandsv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.83609,
October26,1989,178SCRA708.
[81]
HeirsoftheLateSpousesPedroS.PalancaandSoterraneaRafolsVda.DePalancav.Republic,G.R.No.151312,August30,2006,
500SCRA209 DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote47,citingDirectorofLandsv.Aquino,G.R.No.31688,
December17,1990,192SCRA296.
[82]
Chavezv.PublicEstatesAuthority,supranote46.
[83]
Republicv.Lao,G.R.No.150413,July1,2003405SCRA291DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote47,
citingDirectorofLandsv.Aquino,supra.
[84]
Republicv.Lao,supraPagkatipunanv.CourtofAppeals,429Phil.377,389390(2002).
[85]
RepublicofthePhilippinesv.Muoz,G.R.No.151910,October15,2007.
[86]
HeirsoftheLateSpousesPedroS.PalancaandSoterraneaRafolsVda.DePalancav.Republic,supraGutierrezHermanosv.Court
ofAppeals,G.R.Nos.5447277,September28,1989,178SCRA37.
[87]
Republicv.Naguiat,G.R.No.134209,January24,2006,479SCRA585.
[88]
40Phil.10(1919).
[89]
Supranote54.
[90]
Ankronv.GovernmentofthePhilippineIslands,supraat16.
28/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
[91]
HeirsoftheLateSpousesPedroS.PalancaandSoterraneaRafolsVda.DePalancav.Republic,supranote81.
[92]
Id.at76.
[93]
Id.at219223.
[94]
Ankronv.GovernmentofthePhilippineIslands,supranote88,at16.
[95]
Id.at1516.
[96]
Act No. 2874, Sec. 8 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155450, August 6, 2008 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
127245,January30,2001.
96aBureauofForestryv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L37995,August31,1987,153SCRA351,357.
[97]
HeirsoftheLateSpousesPedroS.PalancaandSoterraneaRafolsVda.DePalancav.Republic,supranote81.
[98]
TherecordsdonotshowthemannerinwhichtitlewasissuedtotheHeirsofCiriacoTirol.
[99]
Records,p.179.
[100]
79Phil.461(1947).
[101]
Supranote64.
[102]
Supranote54.
[103]
Supranote88.
[104]
Art.XIII,Sec.1.
[105]
Krivenkov.RegisterofDeedsofManila,supranote100,at468469.
[106]
ActNo.926,Sec.54,par.6states:
SEC.54.Thefollowingdescribedpersonsortheirlegalsuccessorsinright,occupyinglandsinthePhilippines,orclaimingto
ownanysuchlandorinterestthereinbutwhosetitlestosuchlandhavenotbeenperfectedmayapplytotheCourtofLand
RegistrationofthePhilippineIslandsforconfirmationoftheirclaimsandtheissuanceofacertificateoftitletherefortowit
xxxx
(6)Allpersonswhobythemselvesortheirpredecessorsininteresthavebeenintheopen,continuousexclusive,andnotorious
possessionandoccupationofagriculturalpubliclands,asdefinedbysaidActofCongressofJulyfirst,nineteenhundredand
two,underabonafideclaimofownershipexceptasagainsttheGovernment,foraperiodoftenyearsnextprecedingthetaking
effectofthisact,exceptwhenpreventedbywar,orforcemajeure,shallbeconclusivelypresumedtohaveperformedallthe
conditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrantandtohavereceivedthesame,andshallbeentitledtoacertificateoftitletosuch
landundertheprovisionsofthischapter.
[107]
Supranote47.
107aG.R.No.135385,December6,2000,347SCRA128.
[108]
Colladov.CourtofAppeals,id.at356.
[109]
Records,p.101AnnexA.
[110]
Id.at106Exhibit1a.
[111]
Rollo(G.R.No.173775),p.5.
[112]
CONSTITUTION(1987),Art.XII,Sec.3CONSTITUTION(1973),Art.XIV,Sec.10,asamendedandCONSTITUTION(1935),
Art.XIII,Sec.1.
[113]
Republicv.Naguiat,supranote87.
[114]
G.R.No.L27873,November29,1983,126SCRA69.
[115]
HeirsofAmunateguiv.DirectorofForestry,id.at75.
[116]
Republicv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L56948,September30,1987,154SCRA476,482483.
[117]
Sec.3provides:
Establishmentoforlowdensityhumansettlementsinprivatelands,orsubdivisions,ifany,subjecttopriorapprovalbythe
MinistryofHumanSettlements,PTAandlocalbuildingofficialsProvided,thatnostructuresshallbeconstructedwithin30
metersfromtheshorelines.
[118]
Sec.5states:
29/30
6/22/2016
G.R.No.167707
Subsistencefarming,inareasdeclaredasalienableanddisposablebytheBureauofForestDevelopment.
[119]
Pars.34.
[120]
SEC.6.ThePresident,uponrecommendationoftheSecretaryofAgricultureandCommerce(nowtheSecretaryoftheDepartmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResources),shallfromtimetotimeclassifylandsofthepublicdomaininto
(a)Alienableordisposable,
(b)Timber,and
(c)Minerallands,
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.Forthepurposesofadministrationanddispositionofalienableordisposablepubliclands,thePresident,uponrecommendationby
theSecretaryofAgricultureandCommerce(nowtheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources),shallfromtime
totimedeclarewhatlandsareopentodispositionorconcessionunderthisAct.
[121]
DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote47Manalov.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.64753,April
26,1989,172SCRA795.
[122]
Republic v. Register of Deeds of Quezon, G.R. No. 73974, May 31, 1995, 244 SCRA 537 Director of Lands v. Intermediate
AppellateCourt,supranote47.
[123]
DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supranote47,citingYngsonv.SecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources,
G.R.No.L36847,July20,1983,123SCRA441Republicv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L45202,September11,1980,99SCRA742.
[124]
Supranote81.
[125]
HeirsoftheLateSpousesPedroS.PalancaandSoterraneaRafolsVda.DePalancav.Republic,id.at222223.
[126]
Reconsideration of DOJ Opinion No. 169, s. 1993, on the DOJ affirmative stand on whether the prohibition against the
reclassificationofforestlandsappliestounclassifiedpublicforest.
[127]
Rollo(G.R.No.173775),p.139.
[128]
DelRosarioIgtibenv.Republic,G.R.No.158449,October22,2004,441SCRA188Republicv.Lao,supranote83.
[129]
PublicLandAct,Sec.48(b).
[130]
PublicEstatesAuthorityv.CourtofAppeals,supranote69.
[131]
CommonwealthActNo.141,ChapterIV.
[132]
Id.,ChapterV.
[133]
HouseBillNo.1109.DeclaringCertainParcelsofthePublicDomainWithinBoracayIsland,Malay,AklanasAgriculturalLand
OpentoDisposition.
[134]
G.R. No. L24796, June28,1968, 23 SCRA 1183, cited in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Dumyung, G.R. Nos. L
3166668,April30,1979,89SCRA532.
[135]
DirectorofForestryv.Muoz,id.at1214.
30/30

DENR Seeks to Nullify Land Titles in Boracay Island

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DENR Seeks to Nullify Land Titles in Boracay Island

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/22/2016

declaratoryrelief.TheOSGcounteredthatBoracayIslandwasanunclassifiedland of the public

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us

hectaresofagriculturalland(alienableanddisposable).The Proclamation likewise provided for a

Petitionersclaimants contended that there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying

The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not

You might also like