1. The case involved a dispute over 1,222 hectares of land classified as "grazing land" called Nottab. Lope Guzman and Pacifico Vijandre sought to register the land.
2. Conflicting evidence was presented on the ownership history of the land. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the land was part of a forest reserve and therefore inalienable public land.
3. Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under the Philippine Constitution. Since the disputed land was treated as pasture land, the registration case was dismissed as the land could not be privately owned.
1. The case involved a dispute over 1,222 hectares of land classified as "grazing land" called Nottab. Lope Guzman and Pacifico Vijandre sought to register the land.
2. Conflicting evidence was presented on the ownership history of the land. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the land was part of a forest reserve and therefore inalienable public land.
3. Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under the Philippine Constitution. Since the disputed land was treated as pasture land, the registration case was dismissed as the land could not be privately owned.
1. The case involved a dispute over 1,222 hectares of land classified as "grazing land" called Nottab. Lope Guzman and Pacifico Vijandre sought to register the land.
2. Conflicting evidence was presented on the ownership history of the land. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the land was part of a forest reserve and therefore inalienable public land.
3. Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under the Philippine Constitution. Since the disputed land was treated as pasture land, the registration case was dismissed as the land could not be privately owned.
While the latters evidence detailed that Bunugans sole heir,
(G.R. No. L-61539 February 14, 1986) Manuela Banugan, sold to Pablo Guzman only the portion in By: Tangonan, Julius excess of the 1000 ha. After Pablo died, the Nottab was inherited by his son Lope Guzman Rivas. Later, Lope sold the same to Ignacio Pascio, who then sold it to his son Fernando. Doctrine: 1. Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under Sec. 1, 5. On one hand, the SolGen contents that the CA erred in not Art. XIII of the 1935 Constitution and Secs. 8, 10 and 11 of declaring that the land was part of a forest reserve and that Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Section 10 distinguishes Banugans Spanish titles werent authentic. strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands (inalienable). 6. On the other hand, the lawyer of Pascua argued that the said land was already private land in Banugans hands and the latters titles were valid and authentic 2. Lands within the forest zone or timber reservation cannot be the object of private ownership. Issue: W/N the application of registration of the said land by Lope and Vijandre should be dismissed as the same is inalienable Facts: public land. 1. On 14 Mar 1973, the CFI granted to Domingo Bunagan a possessory information title for tract of land specifically Ratio: YES classified as grazing land called Nottab. Lope Guzman and Held: Pacifico Vijandre now seek to have the same registered. The registration case herein should be dismissed since the disputed 2. Conflicting evidence were presented by petitioner Pacifico land is part of the forest reserve under PD 159. Its intended for Vijandre and oppositor Cagayan Valley Agricultural Corp wood production watershed soil protection and other forest uses. (Cavaco). Previously, the TC and CA adjudicated the land to The same fact is proven by the way that Lope and Pascua treated Cavaco, though it was 1,222 ha and exceeded the 1000 ha limit the same as pasture land or grazing land. Even under the under law. presented tax declarations the land was described as for pasture exclusively. 3. The formers evidence depicted that that after Bunugans death, the same was sold by the heirs of Bunugans attorney to Manuel Guzman. Then Guzmans administratrix, with the courts Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under section 1, approval, sold it to Luis Guzman Reyes. It passed next to Luis Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution and sections 8, 10 and 11 of widow, Dolores, who sold the northern portion to Saturnino, and Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Section 10 distinguishes the southern portion to Rafael. The northern portion was then strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands sold to spouses Estrada. Finally, the spouses and Rafael sold (inalienable). Thus, lands within the forest zone or timber their portions to Cavaco. reservation cannot be the object of private ownership.