CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
Forest or Timber
PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION: (1ST SLIDE)
1935 Constitution (2nd SLIDE)
1. Agricultural
2. Forest or Timber
3. Mineral
1973 Constitution (3RD SLIDE)
1. Agricultural
2. Industrial or commercial
3. Residential
4. Resettlement
5. Mineral
6. Timber or Forest
7. Grazing land
Art. XII Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution (4TH
SLIDE) (NOTE: wag na ung mismong prov hehe)
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified
into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and
national parks. Agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to
the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable
lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the
public domain except by lease, for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines
may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by
purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and subject
to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress
shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public
domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or
leased and the conditions therefor.
1. Agricultural
2.
3. Mineral
4. National parks
SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION (5th slide)
Section 9 of the Public Land Act (6TH SLIDE)
SECTION 9. For the purpose of their administration
and disposition, the lands of the public domain
alienable or open to disposition shall be classified,
according to the use or purposes to which such lands
are destined, as follows:
(a) Agricultural
(b) Residential commercial industrial or for
similar productive purposes
(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar
purposes
(d) Reservations for town sites and for public and
quasi-public uses.
The President, upon recommendation by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from
time to time make the classifications provided for in
this section, and may, at any time and in a similar
manner, transfer lands from one class to another
SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (An executive
prerogative) (7TH SLIDE)
SECTION 6. The President, upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands
of the public domain into —
(a) Alienable or disposable;
(b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
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
- Under section 6 of the Public Land Act, the
President through a presidential proclamation
 or executive order, can classify or reclassify
land to be included or excluded from the
public domain. The Secretary, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), is the only other public official
empowered by law to approve a land
classification and declare such land as
alienable and disposable (8TH SLIDE)
Ex. Proclamation No. 1064- Boracay
ADDITIONAL: (if ever matanong)
Land
1. Belongs to the state
I. Public dominion
a. Intended for public use
b. Intended for some public service
c. Intended for the development of the
National wealth
II. Patrimonial property- land belonging to the
state that is not of such character or although
of such character but no longer intended for
public use or for public service
2. Private ownership
CASES/STATUTES
MALABANAN VS. REPUBLIC
Ponente: TINGA, J.:
FACTS:
On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an
application for land registration before the RTC of
Cavite-Tagaytay, covering a parcel of land situated
in Silang Cavite, consisting of 71,324 square meters.
Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the
property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious,
and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of
the land for more than thirty (30) years. Velazco
testified that the property was originally belonged to
a twenty-two hectare property owned by his great-
grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons–
Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban–the
fourth being Aristedes’s grandfather. Upon Lino’s
death, his four sons inherited the property and
divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Esteban’s
wife, Magdalena, had become the administrator of all
the properties inherited by the Velazco sons from
their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and
Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in
administering the properties, including Lot 9864-A,
which originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo
Velazco. It was this property that was sold by
Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan.
Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during
trial was a Certification dated 11 June 2001, issued
by the Community Environment & Natural
Resources Office, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated
that the subject property was “verified to be within
the Alienable or Disposable land per Land
Classification Map No. 3013 established under
Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO
4-1656 on March 15, 1982.” On 3 December 2002,
the RTC approved the application for registration.
The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of
Appeals, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove
that the property belonged to the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain, and that the
RTC had erred in finding that he had been in
possession of the property in the manner and for the
length of time required by law for confirmation of
imperfect title. On 23 February 2007, the Court of
Appeals reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the
application of Malabanan.
ISSUES:
1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of
the public domain may be registered under Section
14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree, should
the land be classified as alienable and disposable as
of June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such
classification occur at any time prior to the filing of
the applicant for registration provided that it is
established that the applicant has been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945 or earlier?
2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree may a parcel of land classified
as alienable and disposable be deemed private land
and therefore susceptible to acquisition by
prescription in accordance with the Civil Code?
3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in
character either because of its use or because its slope
is below that of forest lands be registrable under
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in
relation to the provisions of the Civil Code on
acquisitive prescription?
4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the
subject land in their names under Section 14(1) or
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or
both?
HELD:
The Petition is denied.
(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public
Land Act recognizes and confirms that “those who
by themselves or through their predecessors in
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain, under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since
June 12, 1945” have acquired ownership of, and
registrable title to, such lands based on the length and
quality of their possession.
(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession
since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands
should have been alienable and disposable during the
entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled
to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as
soon as it is declared alienable and disposable,
subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of
the Public Land Act.
(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b)
of the Public Land Act is further confirmed by
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil
Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of
acquiring ownership of patrimonial property.
However, public domain lands become only
patrimonial property not only with a declaration that
these are alienable or disposable. There must also be
an express government manifestation that the
property is already patrimonial or no longer retained
for public service or the development of national
wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And
only when the property has become patrimonial can
the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property
of the public dominion begin to run.
(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the
government. The person acquires ownership of
patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil
Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.
(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which
patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary
and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive
prescription, a person acquires ownership of a
patrimonial property through possession for at least
ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s
uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial
property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of
good faith or just title, ripens into ownership.
It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is
insufficient to establish that Malabanan has acquired
ownership over the subject property under Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive
evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners
as his predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or
earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back
their possession, according to their own evidence—
the Tax Declarations they presented in particular—is
to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves
of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree.
Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section
14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject
property was declared as alienable or disposable in
1982, there is no competent evidence that is no
longer intended for public use service or for the
development of the national evidence, conformably
with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification
of the subject property as alienable and disposable
land of the public domain does not change its status
as property of the public dominion under Article
420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to
acquisition by prescription.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF
APPEALS
[G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997]
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
FACTS:
On December 8, 1986, Private Respondent Teodoro
Abistado filed a petition for original registration of
his title over 648 square meters of land under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.
The land registration court in its decision dated June
13, 1989 dismissed the petition for want of
jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court is of the well considered
view that it has not legally acquired jurisdiction over
the instant application for want of compliance with
the mandatory provision requiring publication of the
notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation."
The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely
procedural and that the failure to cause such
publication did not deprive the trial court of its
authority to grant the application.
Unsatisfied, private respondents appealed to
Respondent Court of Appeals which, set aside the
decision of the trial court and ordered the registration
of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado.
The subsequent motion for reconsideration was
denied in the challenged CA Resolution dated
November 19, 1991.
The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor
General thus elevated this recourse to the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that
a newspaper publication of the notice of initial
hearing in an original land registration case
mandatory or directory?
HELD:
YES. The petition was granted.
Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. -
- The court shall, within five days from filing of the
application, issue an order setting the date and hour
of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than
forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the
date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of
the application for land registration by means of (1)
publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
It should be noted further that land registration is a
proceeding in rem. Being in rem, such proceeding
requires constructive seizure of the land as against all
persons, including the state, who have rights to or
interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is
validated essentially through publication. This being
so, the process must strictly be complied with.
The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with
such mandatory requirement. The law is
unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again,
this Court has declared that where the law speaks in
clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is
room only for application. There is no alternative.
Thus, the application for land registration filed by
private respondents must be dismissed without
prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the
legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.
DIRECTOR, LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU
VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 112567, FEBRUARY 7, 2000 (381 Phil.
761)
Ponente: PURISIMA, J.
“failure to prove possession according to the
manner and no. of years required by law”
Facts:
Respondent Aquilino Cariño filed a petition for
registration for Lot 6 which is a sugar land claimed
to be owned by his mother of whom after she died he
became the administrator of the property in behalf of
his brothers and sisters. By virtue of a deed
of extrajudicial settlement, he became the sole owner
of the property. Report from the land investigator
showed that the lot is agricultural in nature.
Respondent claims that the improvements introduced
were in the form of bamboo clumps, sugarcane and
mango trees with the house of the tenant; that the
land is free from claim and conflict and is not
covered by existing public land application and no
patent or title has been issued to it; that the
respondent is on continuous, open and exclusive
possession of the land as inherited from his deceased
mother. Respondent is the sole witness for his
petition and the only oppositor is the Bureau of
Lands. The court granted the petition of the
respondent. The petitioner filed a review for
certiorari contending that the respondent failed to
submit proof of his fee simple title and has not
overthrown the presumption that the land is a portion
of the public domain belonging to the state.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent established proof of
his muniment of title to merit registration of land in
his favor?
Ruling:
The petition of the respondent is covered by the Land
Registration Act providing that a person alleging in
his petition or application ownership in fee simple
must present muniments of title to substantiate his
claim of ownership, presenting evidence of his
possession in the concept of an owner in a manner
and number of years required by law. The manner
shall be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of the property known as agricultural land
of the public domain for 30 years preceding the filing
of application for confirmation (Commonwealth Act
No. 141).
Possession of public land however long never
confers title upon the possessor unless occupant of
the same is under claim of ownership for the required
period. Even in the absence of opposition the court
can deny registration of land under the Torrens
System on ground that an applicant failed to establish
his ownership by a fee simple on the property sought
to be registered.
The respondent only traced his own possession in the
land in 1949 by virtue of extrajudicial settlement and
order and at the same time he filed his application for
registration in 1975 thus he was in possession of said
land only for 26 years. His mere allegation that his
mother was in possession of the land since 1911 is
self serving and hearsay and is inadmissible as
evidence. The tax receipts and tax declaration he
offered as evidence do not substantiate clear proof of
ownership. Thus, with his failure to prove that his
predecessor-in-interest occupied the land under the
condition laid down by law, he can only establish his
possession of the land from 1949. Respondent failed
to prove his muniment of title for the registration of
the land under the Registration Act with failure to
present convincing and positive proof of his
continuous, open, uninterrupted and notorious
occupation of lot 6 in the concept of an owner for at
least 30 years.
Sec. 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the exception
of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into
co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided
by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in
its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens,
as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with
foreign-owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country.
In such agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every and streams: Provided, further, That when public
contract entered into in accordance with this interest so requires, steps shall be taken to
provision, within thirty days from its execution. expropriate, cancel defective titles, reject public land
application, or eject occupants thereof.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified
into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and
national parks. Agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to
the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable
lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the
public domain except by lease, for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines
may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by
purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and subject
to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress
shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public
domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or
leased and the conditions therefor.

5. Section 15, PD no. 705 (Revised Forestry Code)

Section 15. Topography. No land of the public
domain eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over shall
be classified as alienable and disposable, nor any
forest land fifty per cent (50%) in slope or over, as
grazing land.
Lands eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over which
have already been declared as alienable and
disposable shall be reverted to the classification of
forest lands by the Department Head, to form part of
the forest reserves, unless they are already covered
by existing titles or approved public land application,
or actually occupied openly, continuously, adversely
and publicly for a period of not less than thirty (30)
years as of the effectivity of this Code, where the
occupant is qualified for a free patent under the
Public Land Act: Provided, That said lands, which
are not yet part of a well-established communities,
shall be kept in a vegetative condition sufficient to
prevent erosion and adverse effects on the lowlands