Secretary of DENR vs Yap

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws: Regalian Doctrine

GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008

FACTS:

This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming that of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory relief filed by
respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes.

On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as a tourist
zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an application for a
judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed
a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition countering that
Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands
classified as public forest, which was not available for disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No.
705 or the Revised Forestry Code.

ISSUE:

Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural land, therefore
making these lands alienable.

HELD:

No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must
establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order, an administrative action, investigative reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and
a legislative act or statute.

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 positive act of the
government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land
for agricultural or other purposes.

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is
the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such
patrimony.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.

Secretary of DENR vs Yap

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws: Regalian Doctrine

GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008

FACTS:

This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming that of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory relief filed by
respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes.

On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as a tourist
zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an application for a
judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed
a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition countering that
Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands
classified as public forest, which was not available for disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No.
705 or the Revised Forestry Code.

ISSUE:

Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural land, therefore
making these lands alienable.

HELD:

No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must
establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order, an administrative action, investigative reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and
a legislative act or statute.

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 positive act of the
government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land
for agricultural or other purposes.

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is
the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such
patrimony.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.

by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable.Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission
that lands occupiedby private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land
classication orreclassication cannot be assumed.Also, private claimants also contend that their
continued possession of portions of Boracay Island for therequisite period of ten (10) years under Act
No. 926

ipso facto converted the island into private ownership.Private claimants continued possession under
Act No. 926 does not create a presumption that the land isalienable. It is plain error for petitioners to
argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land ActNo. 926, mere possession by private
individuals of lands creates the legal presumption that the lands arealienable and disposable.Private
claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial conrmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141.
Neitherdo they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law. There are two requisites
for judicialconrmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:(1) open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by himself orthrough his
predecessors-in-interest under a bona de claim of ownership since time immemorial or fromJune 12,
1945; and(2) the classication of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.The tax
declarations in the name of private claimants are insufcient to prove the rst element of
possession.The SC noted 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 sufcient to convince this Court that
the period ofpossession and occupation commenced on June 12, 1945.Yap et al and Sacay et al insist
that they have a vested right in Boracay, having been in possession of theisland for a long time. They
have invested millions of pesos in developing the island into a tourist spot. Theysay their continued
possession and investments give them a vested right which cannot be unilaterallyrescinded by
Proclamation No. 1064.The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do
not automatically give them avested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title
to the land they are presentlyoccupying. The SC is constitutionally bound to decide cases based on the
evidence presented and the lawsapplicable. As the law and jurisprudence stand, private claimants are
ineligible to apply for a judicialconrmation of title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with
their continued possession andconsiderable investment in the island.

Agricultural Land

de Aldecoa vs Insular Government(G.R. No. 3894. March 12, 1909)Facts

:Juan Ibaez de Aldecoa applied for the registration of his title to a parcel of land, situated in the town
ofSurigao; a plan and technical description of said parcel was attached to his application.After the
formalities of the law were complied with, and an opinion of the examiner of titles opposing therequest
of the applicant, had been rendered, the Attorney-General objected to the registration applied
for,alleging that the land in question was the property of the Government of the United States, and is
now underthe control of the Insular Government.Aldecoa, amended his former petition, and relying
upon the provisions of paragraph 5 and 6 of section 54 ofAct No. 926, alleged that at the time he
requested the registration of the land in question, comprised in theplan then submitted, the aforesaid
Act No. 926 was not yet in force, and as the latter affords better facilitiesfor securing titles to property
unprovided with them, as in the case with the land in question, the applicantavailing himself of the
benets granted by the said Act, prayed that the same be applied to the inscription of his land.

Issue

:Whether or not a parcel of land that is susceptible of being cultivated, and, ceasing to be agricultural
land,was converted into a building lot, is subject to the legal provisions in force regarding Government
publiclands which may be alienated in favor of private individuals or corporations.

Ruling

: Any parcel of land or building lot is susceptible of cultivation, and may be converted into a eld, and
plantedwith all kind of vegetation; for this reason, where land is not mining or forestall in its nature, it
mustnecessarily be included within the classication of agricultural land, not because it is actually used
for thepurposes of agriculture, but because it was originally agricultural and may again become so under
othercircumstances.The SC said in special cases like the present one, wherein is sought the registration
of a lot situated within atown created and acknowledged administratively, it is proper to apply thereto
the laws in force and classify itas agricultural land, inasmuch as it was agricultural prior to its conversion
into a building lot, and is subject atany time to further rotation and cultivation; moreover, it does not
appear that it was ever mining or forestland.Article 1 of the royal decree states: "Vacant lands, soils,
grounds, and mountains in the Philippine Islandsshall be deemed to be alienable Crown lands, provided
they are not included within the following exceptions:(1) Those of private ownership; (2) those
belonging to the forest zone; (3) those comprised in the communallaws, or within zones reserved for the
use in common by residents of the community; and (4) those landswhich are susceptible of private
appropriation by means of composition or possessory information.It is deduced that, with the exception
of those comprised within the mineral and timber zone, all lands ownedby the State or by the sovereign
nation are public in character, and per se alienable and, provided they arenot destined to the use of the
public in general or reserved by the Government in accordance with law, theymay be acquired by any
private or judicial person; and considering their origin and primitive state and thegeneral uses to which
they were accorded, they are called agricultural lands, urban lands or building lotsbeing included in this
classication for the purpose of distinguishing rural and urban estates from mineral andtimber lands;
the transformation they may have undergone is no obstacle to such classication as thepossessors
thereof may again convert them into rural estates.

Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila(18 G.R. No. L-630. November 15, 1947)Facts:

Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot from Magdalena Estate Inc. in December 1941.
Theregistration was interrupted by the war. In May 1945, he sought to accomplish the said registration
but wasdenied by the Register of Deeds of Manila on the grounds that he is a foreigner and he cannot
acquire a landin this jurisdiction. Krivenko brought the case to the CFI of Manila. The CFI ruled that he
cannot own a land,being an alien. Hence, this petition.
Issue:

Whether or not an alien may own private lands in the Philippines.

Held:

No. Sec. 1, Art 13 of the Constitution talks about the conservation and utilization of natural resources.
Thesaid provision embraces all lands of any kind of the public domain. Its purpose is to establish a
permanentand fundamental policy for the conservation and utilization of all natural resources of the
nation. Although itmentions agricultural, timber, and mineral lands, the court held that in determining
whether a parcel of land isagricultural, the test is not only whether it is actually agricultural, but also its
susceptibility to cultivation foragricultural purposes. Hence, public agricultural land was construed as
referring to those lands that werenot timber or mineral. Therefore, it includes residential lands.