THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

vs.
RUPERTO A. VILLAREAL
G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989
Facts: The said land consists of 178,113 square meters of mangrove swamps located in the
municipality of Sapian, Capiz. Ruperto Villareal applied for its registration on January 25, 1949,
alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land for more than
forty years. He was opposed by several persons, including the. After trial, the application was
approved by the Court of First Instance. of Capiz. The decision was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. The Director of Forestry then came to this Court in a petition for review on certiorari claiming
that the land in dispute was forest land in nature and not subject to private appropriation
It should be stressed at the outset that both the petitioner and the private respondent agree that the
land is mangrove land. There is no dispute as to this. The bone of contention between the parties is
the legal nature of mangrove swamps or manglares. The petitioner claims, it is forest land and
therefore not disposable and the private respondent insists it is alienable as agricultural land. The
issue is legal, not factual.
Issue: Whether or not the subject land is alienable
Held: No. the classification of mangrove swamps as forest lands is descriptive of its legal nature or
status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Mangrove swamps
or manglares should be understood as comprised within the public forests of the Philippines as
defined in Section 1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917. It follows from all this that the land under
contention being admittedly a part of the mangrove swamps of Sapian, and for which a minor forest
license had in fact been issued by the Bureau of Forestry from 1920 to 1950, it must be considered
forest land. It could therefore not be the subject of the adverse possession and consequent
ownership claimed by the private respondent in support of his application for registration. To be so, it
had first to be released as forest land and reclassified as agricultural land pursuant to the
certification the Director of Forestry may issue under Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative
Code.
The private respondent invokes the survey plan of the mangrove swamps approved by the Director
of Lands, to prove that the land is registerable. Such approval is ineffectual because it is clearly in
officious. The Director of Lands was not authorized to act in the premises. It is the Director of Forestry
who has the authority to determine whether forest land is more valuable for agricultural rather than
forestry uses, as a basis for its declaration as agricultural land and release for private ownership.

G.R. No. L-46048 November 29, 1988

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, as represented by the DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY (now
Director of Forest Development)
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MIGUEL MARCELO, CELIA ZURBITO, HEIRS OF JOSE
ZURBITO, namely, SOLEDAD VDA. DE ZURBITO, GASPAR, GUADALUPE, ADELAIDA, FELIPE,
JOSE and CECILIO, all surnamed ZURBITO

Facts: The proceedings in the court a quo started on February 8, 1955 when herein private
respondent Miguel Marcelo filed an application for the registration of two parcels of land with an
aggregate area of 116.8441 hectares, situated in Sitio Calulod Barrio Pauwa Masbate, Masbate.
Oppositions were filed by the Government and private parties. The opposition of the Director
of Forestry (now Forest Development), which is the one involved in the present recourse, was based
on the ground that the 22 hectares of the aggregate area of the two parcels of land applied for form
part of Timberland Block F, Land Classification Project No. 3, L.C. Map No. 452, Masbate, Masbate,
certified on December 22, 1924.
The spouse Jose and Soledad Zurbito occupied and cultivated these properties and their
possession was peaceful, adverse, public, open, and in the concept of owners since 1909

Issue: whether the 22 hectares area which forms part of the land applied for registration by and
decreed in favor of herein private respondents is disposable agricultural land.
Held: Yes. It is not disputed that the aforesaid Land Classification Project No. 3, classifying the 22hectare area as timberland, was certified by the Director of Lands only on December 22, 1924,
whereas the possession thereof by private respondents and their predecessor-in-interest
commenced as early as 1909. While the Government has the right to classify portions of Public land,
the primary right of a private individual who Possessed and cultivated the land in good faith much
prior to such classification must be recognized and should not be prejudiced by after-events which
could not have been anticipated. Thus, We have held that the Government, in the first instance may,
by reservation, decide for itself what portions of public land shall be considered forestry land, unless
private interests have intervened before such reservation is made.
On the matter of classification of the land into either agricultural or forestal area, petitioner's
invocation of Section 1838 of the Revised Administrative Code is not in point since said provision is
merely a general conferment of authority and administrative control on the Director of Forestry to
lease or grant to qualified persons, under the conditions therein stated, permits for the use of forest
lands or vacant non-agricultural public lands. However, as to whether the particular land in question
is forestry or any other class of land is a question of fact to be settled by the proof in each particular
case.

G.R. No. 134209

January 24, 2006

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
CELESTINA NAGUIAT
Facts: This is an application for registration of title to four (4) parcels of land (classified as forest
land) located in Panan, Botolan, Zambales, more particularly described in the amended application
filed by Celestina Naguiat on 29 December 1989. Applicant [herein respondent] alleges, inter alia,
that she is the owner of the said parcels of land having acquired them by purchase from the LID
Corporation which likewise acquired the same from Demetria Calderon, Josefina Moraga and Fausto
Monje and their 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 encumbrance of
whatever kind nor is there any person having any interest, legal or equitable, or in possession
thereof.
On 29 June 1990, the Republic of the Philippines filed an opposition to the application on the ground
that neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the lands in question since 12 June 1945 or prior
thereto; that the muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not constitute competent
and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide acquisition of the lands applied for or of his open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of an owner. CA granted
the application. Petitioner Republic faults the appellate court on its finding respecting the length of
respondents occupation of the property subject of her application for registration and for not
considering the fact that she has not established that the lands in question have been declassified
from forest or timber zone to alienable and disposable property
Issue: Whether or not the subject land has ceased to have the status of a forest land
Held: No. Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless declassified and released by positive act of
the Government so that they may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain,
are not capable of private appropriation.5 As to these assets, the rules on confirmation of imperfect
title do not apply.
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply
because loggers or settlers have stripped it of its forest cover. The classification is merely descriptive
of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
Here, respondent never presented the required certification from the proper government agency or
official proclamation reclassifying the land applied for as alienable and disposable. Matters of land
classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. It calls for proof. Aside from tax receipts,
respondent submitted in evidence the survey map and technical descriptions of the lands, which,
needless to state, provided no information respecting the classification of the property. As the Court
has held, however, these documents are not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the land
sought to be registered forms part of the public domain.

Unclassified land, as here, 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.