You are on page 1of 9

DENR vs Yap convince this Court that the period of possession and

(G.R. No. 167707, October 08, 2008) Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 occupation commenced on June 12, 1945. Yap et al and Sacay
pose any legal obstacle for Yap et al and Sacay et al, and et al insist that they have a vested right in Boracay, having
FACTS: all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their occupied been in possession of the island for a long time. They have
Boracay Mayor Jose Yap et al filed for declaratory relief to lands in Boracay Island. invested millions of pesos in developing the island into a
have a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land tourist spot. They say their continued possession and
for titling purposes for the land they ve been HELD: investments give them a vested right which cannot be
occupying in Boracay. Yap et al alleged that Proclamation unilaterally rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064.
No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on their Yes. The SC ruled against Yap et al and Sacay et al. The The continued possession and considerable investment of
right to secure titles over their occupied lands. They Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public private claimants do not automatically give them a vested
declared that they themselves, or through their domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for
predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with a title to the land they are presently occupying. The SC is
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in the conservation of such patrimony. All lands that have not constitutionally bound to decide cases based on the
Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time been acquired from the government, either by purchase or evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law
immemorial. They declared their lands for tax purposes by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable and jurisprudence stand, private claimants are ineligible to
and paid realty taxes on them. The Republic, through the Office public domain. A positive act declaring land as alienable and apply for a judicial confirmation of title over their occupied
of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition for disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption of portions in Boracay even with their continued possession
declaratory relief. The OSG countered that Boracay Island State ownership, there must be a positive act of the government, and considerable investment in the island.
was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable
of the mass of lands classified as “public forest,” which was public land into disposable land for agricultural or other
not available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of purposes. In the case at bar, no such proclamation,
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code. executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or
Since Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable certification was presented. The records are bereft of
and disposable, whatever possession they had cannot ripen evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of
into ownership. RTC Ruled in favor of Yap et al. The OSG Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a
appealed. government proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible
G.R. No. 173775 evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that
During the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, in May 2006, lands occupied by private claimants were already open to
then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued disposition before 2006. Matters of land classification or
Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into four reclassification cannot be assumed.
hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection
purposes) and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 Also, private claimants also contend that their continued
(628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and possession of portions of Boracay Island for the requisite
disposable). The Proclamation likewise provided for a period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926
fifteen-meter buffer zone on each side of the centerline of ipso facto converted the island into private ownership.
roads and trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall Private claimants’ continued possession under Act No. 926
form part of the area reserved for forest land protection does not create a presumption that the land is alienable. It is
purposes.Subsequently, Dr. Orlando Sacay, and other plain error for petitioners to argue that under the Philippine
Boracay landowners in Boracay filed with the Supreme Court Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession
(SC) an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and by private individuals of lands creates the legal
nullification of Proclamation No. 1064. They alleged that presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable.
the Proclamation infringed on their “prior vested rights” Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial
over portions of Boracay. They have been in continued confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141. Neither do
possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the
immemorial. They have also invested billions of pesos in said law.
developing their lands and building internationally
renowned first class resorts on their lots. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation
of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:
The OSG again opposed Sacay’s petition. The OSG (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
argued that Sacay et al do not have a vested right over and occupation of the subject land by himself or through
their occupied portions in the island. Boracay is an his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of
unclassified public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945;
PD No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions of the and
island are inalienable and cannot be the subject of judicial (2) the classification of the land as alienable and
confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the executive disposable land of the public domain.
department, not the courts, which has authority to
reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and The tax declarations in the name of private claimants are
disposable lands. There is a need for a positive insufficient to prove the first element of possession. The
government act in order to release the lots for disposition. SC noted that the earliest of the tax declarations in the
name of private claimants were issued in 1993. Being of
ISSUE: recent dates, the tax declarations are not sufficient to
Valenton vs Murciano 1906 Ruling: within a time to be fixed by the authorities, and he was
G.R. No. 1413 warned that if he did not do so he would be evicted
No. Judgement affirmed. Special laws which from the from his land and it would be granted to others. By
Facts: earliest times have regulated the disposition of the terms of article 4 those possessors to whom grants
In 1860, the plaintiffs, and each one of them, entered public lands in the colonies not Partidas. Law 14, title had been made prior to 1700, were entitled to have
into the peaceful and quite occupation and 12, book 4 was the first of a long series of such grants confirmed, and it was also provided that
possession of the larger part of the lands described in legislative acts intended to compel those in not being able to prove any grant it should be
the complaint of the plaintiffs. From 1860, the plaintiffs possession of the public lands, without written sufficient to prove that "ancient possession," as a
continued to occupy and posses the said lands, evidence of title, or with defective title papers, to sufficient title by prescription, and they should be
quietly and peacefully, until the year 1892, by present evidence as to their possession or grants, confirmed in their holdings. "That ancient possession"
themselves, by their agents and tenants, claiming that and obtain the confirmation of their claim to would be at least fifty four years, for it would have to
they were the exclusive owners of said lands. That on ownership. While the State has always recognized date from prior to 1700, no confirmation could be
or about the 16th day of January, 1892, Manuel the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a granted on proof of prescription alone. Similar
Murciano, defendant -attorney in fact of Candido possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has provisions are found in the regulations of 1883,
Capulong, by denounced the said lands to the then always insisted that he must make that proof before approved the second time by royal order of February
existing Government of the Philippine Islands, the proper administrative officers, and obtain from 16 (Gaceta de Manila, June 28, 1883).
declaring that the said lands belong to the then them his deed, and until he did that the State
existing Government of the Philippine Islands, and remained the absolute owner. In the preamble of
petitioned for the sale of the same to him. this law there is, as is seen, a distinct statement that
G.R. No. L-2468 July 16, 1906
all those lands belong to the Crown which have not
Andres Valenton filed for protest against the been granted by Philip, or in his name, or by the kings
proceeding. On the July 14, 1982 Don Enrique who preceded him. This statement excludes the idea MAGDALENA CANSINO, ET AL., plaintiffs-
Castellvi ’e Ibarrola, secretary of the treasury of the that there might be lands not so granted, that did not appellees,
Province of Tarlac, in executed a contract of purchase belong to the king. It excludes the idea that the king vs.
and sale to Murciano. From the said 14th day of July, was not still the owner of all ungranted lands, because GERVASIO VALDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
1892, Manuel Murciano has at no time occupied or some private person had been in the adverse
possessed all of the land mentioned, but has occupation of them. By the mandatory part of the law
possessed only certain indistinct and indefinite all the occupants of the public lands are required to The decision in this case was announced on the 30th
portions of the same. CFI ordered judgment for the produce before the authorities named, and within a of April, 1906. The grounds of that decision are as
defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs had lost time to be fixed by them, their title papers. And those follows: The case is almost identical with the case of
all right to the land by not pursuing their objections to who had good title or showed prescription were to be Valenton vs. Murciano1 (2 Off Gaz., 434), decided on
the sale mentioned. Plaintiff contended that in 1890 protected. in their holdings. It is apparent that it was the 30th of March, 1904. The similarity extends even
they had been in the adverse possession of the not the intention of the law that mere possession for a to the dates and to the location of the land, for we
judge from the description of the property involved in
property for thirty years; that, applying the length of time should make the possessors the
extraordinary period of prescription of thirty years, owners of the lands possessed by them without any this suit and the description of the property involved in
found as well in the Partidas as in the Civil Code, they action on the part of the authorities. It is plain that they the case of Valenton vs. Murciano that they are two
adjoining tracts of land, one situated in the Province of
then became the absolute owners of the land as were required to present their claims to the authorities
against everyone, including the State, and that when and obtain a confirmation thereof. What the period of Pangasinan and the other in the Province of Tarlac,
the State in 1892 deeded the property to the prescription mentioned in this law was does not the boundary line between the two tracts of land.
defendant, nothing passed by the deed because the appear, but later, in 1646, law 19 of the same title
State had nothing to convey. declared "that no one shall be ’admitted to adjustment In the case of Valenton vs. Murciano, the defendant
’ unless he has possessed the lands for ten years." bought the land from the Spanish Government by a
Issue: Another legislative act of the same character was the deed dated the 14th of July, 1892. In this case the
whether during the years from 1860 to 1890 plaintiffs royal cedula of October 15, 1754 (4 Legislacion plaintiff, Magdalena Cansino, bought the property in
could have obtained as against the State the Ultramarina, Rodriguez San Pedro, 673). The wording question, as public lands of the State from the
ownership of the of this law is much stronger than that of law 14. As is Spanish Government and received a deed therefor on
public lands of the State by means of occupation seen by the terms of article 3, any person whatever the 27th of October, 1893. In the former case the
who occupied any public land was required to present plaintiffs went into possession of the land in 1860 and
the instruments by virtue of which he was in claimed ownership thereof by the extraordinary
possession, prescription of thirty years. In this case some of the
defendants testified that they went into possession in character as to require the presumption of a grant. No therefore requested that the land mentioned be
1862 and they claimed the ownership of this land by one has lived upon it for many years. It was never forthwith brought under the operation of the Land
the same extraordinary prescription. In either one of used for anything but pasturage of animals, except Registration Act and become registered land in the
the cases did the occupants have any written title to insignificant portions thereof, and since the meaning thereof, and that you proceed in accordance
the land. insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been with the provisions of Act No. 648. The court of Land
used by Cariño for any purpose. In view of these Registration, acting upon this notice from the Governor,
provisions of the law, it seems to us impossible to say
In Valenton vs. Murciano we decided that title to lands issued the notice required by Act No. 627, and in
that as to the public agricultural lands in the
such as were involved in that case could not be pursuance of that notice Jones, the appellee, within the
Philippines there existed a conclusive presumption
acquired by prescription while they were the property six months referred to in the notice, presented his
after a lapse of thirty or any other number of years
of the State. The decision in that case governs and petition asking that the land be registered in his name.
that the Government of Spain had granted to the
controls this case and upon its authority judgment in
possessor thereof a legal title thereto. While the State
this case was affirmed. First claim of the Government is that the provisions of
has always recognized the right of the occupant to a
deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length Act No. 648 were not complied with in the respect that
Cariño vs Insular Government of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make this letter of the Governor did not amount to a certificate
212 U. S., 449 that proof before the proper administrative officers, that the lands had been reserved.
and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the
Facts: State remained the absolute owner. Act No. 648 conferred power upon the Governor to
On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cariño went to the Court of reserve lands for public purposes, but it did not make
Land Registration (CLR) to petition his inscription as G.R. No. L-2506 April 16, 1906 that power exclusive. The Commission did not thereby
the owner of a 146 hectare land he’s been possessing deprive itself of the power to itself make reservations in
in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo only F. STEWART JONES v THE INSULAR the future, if it saw fit; neither did it intend to annul any
presented possessory information and no other GOVERNMENT reservations which it had formerly made. The
documentation. The application was granted by contention of the Government is true when applied to a
the court on March 4, 1904. An appeal was taken to Facts:
case where the land has not been reserved by the
the court of first instance of the province of Benguet, Commission. In such a case it would be the duty of the
on behalf of the government of the Philippines, and F. Stewart Jones presented a petition to the Court of
Governor to first reserve it by an executive order, and
also on behalf of the United States, those Land Registration asking that he be inscribed as the
governments having taken possession of the property then to give notice to the Court of Land Registration,
owner of a certain tract of land situatd in the Province
for public and military purposes. The court of first but where the land had already been reserved by
of Benguet, and within the reservation defined in Act
instance found the facts and dismissed the application competent authority, it not only was not necessary for
No. 636. The Solicitor-General appeared in the court
upon grounds of law. The State opposed the petition the Governor to issue any executive order reserving
below and opposed the inscription upon the ground
averring that the land is part of the US military the land but he had no power to do so. In such cases
that the property was public land. At the trial he
reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The the only duty imposed upon him was to give notice to
objected to any consideration of the case on the ground
State appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a the Court of Land Registration that the land had been
that the court had no jurisdiction to register land
grant should be given to him by reason of immemorial reserved. This notice was given in the letter above
use and occupation as in the previous cases Cansino situated in that reservation. The objections were
quoted. The court had jurisdiction to try the case.
vs Valdez and Tiglao vs Government; and that the overruled and judgment entered in favor of the
right of the State over said land has prescribed. petitioner, from which judgment the Government Petitioner Jones, bought the land in question from
appealed to this court. Sioco Cariño, an Igorot. He caused his deed to the land
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of to be recorded in the office of the registrar of property.
the land by virtue of his possession of it for some The act creating the Court of Land Registration (No.
Prior thereto, and while Sioco Cariño was in
time. 496) gave it jurisdiction throughout the Archipelago. By
possession of the land, he commenced proceedings in
Act No. 1224, which was approved August 31, 1904,
HELD: court for the purpose of obtaining a possessory
and which applied to pending cases, the court was
No. The statute of limitations did not run against the information in accordance with the provisions of the
deprived of jurisdiction over lands situated in the
government. The government is still the absolute Mortgage Law. This possessory information he caused
Province of Benguet. That act, however, contained a
owner of the land (regalian doctrine). Further, Mateo’s to be recorded in the office of the registrar of property.
proviso by which the court was given jurisdiction over
possession of the land has not been of such a The evidence of Sioco Carino shows that what he did
applications for registration of title to land in all cases
in the way of presenting a petition to the Spanish
coming within the provisions of Act No. 648. It is
Government in regard to a deed of the land was done other than timber or mineral lands, but such rules and purchaser or grantee can not alienate or encumber
by order of the then comandante, and was limited to regulations shall not go into effect or have the force of said land or the title thereto; but such restriction shall
securing a measurement thereof, as he then believed. law until they have received the approval of the not apply to transfers of rights and title of inheritance
These acts did not interrupt the running of the statute President, and when approved by the President they under the laws for the distribution of the estates of
of limitations. shall be submitted by him to Congress at the beginning decedents.
of the next ensuing session thereof and unless
Issue: disapproved or amended by Congress at said session It is first to be noted that section 13 does not
they shall at the close of such period have the force and apply to all lands. Timber and mineral lands are
Whether or not the provision is void that the act thereby effect of law in the Philippine Islands: Provided, That a expressly excluded. If the Commission should pass
disposes of public lands that Congress is the only single homestead entry shall not exceed sixteen laws relating to mineral lands without submitting them
authority that can take such action, and that it has hectares in extent. to Congress, as it has done (Act No. 624), their validity
never authorized or approved the action of the would not be determined by inquiring if they had been
Commission in applying the statute of limitations to SEC. 14. That the Government of the submitted to Congress under section 13, but rather by
proceedings under Acts Nos. 648 and 627. Philippine Islands is hereby authorized and inquiring if they were inconsistent with other provisions
empowered to enact rules and regulations and to of the act relating to mineral lands. In other words, the
Held: prescribe terms and conditions to enable persons to fact that such laws were not submitted to Congress
perfect their title to public lands in said Islands, who, would not necessarily make them void.
We do not think that this contention can be sustained.
prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the
Section 12 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, The same is true of legislation relating to coal lands, as
United States, had fulfilled all or some of the conditions
provides as follows: to which sections 53 and 57 contain provisions. By
required by the Spanish laws and royal decrees of the
Kingdom of Spain for the acquisition of legal title section 57 this Government is authorized to issue all
SEC. 12. That all the property and rights
thereto, yet failed to secure conveyance of title; and the needful rules and regulations for carrying into effect this
which may have been acquired in the Philippine Islands
Philippine Commission is authorized to issue patents, and preceding sections relating to mineral lands. Such
by the United States under the treaty of peace with
without compensation, to any native of said Islands, regulations need not be submitted to Congress for its
Spain, signed December tenth, eighteen hundred and
conveying title to any tract of land not more than sixteen approval. Act No. 1128, relating to coal lands, was not
ninety-eight, except such land or other property as shall
hectares in extent, which were public lands and had submitted.
be designated by the President of the United States for
military and other reservations of the Government of been actually occupied by such native or his ancestors
prior to and on the thirteenth of August, eighteen The act of Congress also contains provisions regarding
the United States, are hereby placed under the control the purchase of lands belonging to religious orders.
of the Government of said Islands, to be administered hundred and ninety-eight.
Section 65 provides as to those lands as follows:
for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof, except as
SEC. 15. That the Government of the
provided in this act. SEC. 65. That all lands acquired by virtue of
Philippine Islands is hereby authorized and
empowered, on such terms as it may prescribe, by the preceding section shall constitute a part and portion
This gives the Government of the Philippine of the public property of the Government of the
Islands power to dispose of these lands, and of all general legislation, to provide for the granting or sale
and conveyance to actual occupants and settlers and Philippine Islands, and may be held, sold, and
public lands, and to pass the law in question, unless conveyed, or leased temporarily for a period not
there is some provision in other parts of the act of July other citizens of said Islands such parts and portions of
the public domain, other than timber and mineral lands, exceeding three years after their acquisition by said
1, 1902, which takes away or limits that power. The Government, on such terms and conditions as it may
government says that such limitation is found in section of the United States in said Islands as it may deem
wise, not exceeding sixteen hectares to any one prescribe, subject to the limitations and conditions
13 of the act. That section and sections 14 and 15 are provided for in this Act. . . . Actual settlers and
as follows: person, and for the sale and conveyance of not more
than one thousand and twenty-four hectares to any occupants at the time said lands are acquired by the
corporation or association of persons: Provided, That Government shall have the preference over all others
SEC. 13. That the Government of the
the grant or sale of such lands, whether the purchase to lease, purchase, or acquire their holdings within
Philippine Islands, subject to the provisions of this Act
price be paid at once or in partial payments, shall be such reasonable time as may be determined by said
and except as herein provided, shall classify according
conditioned upon actual and continued occupancy, Government.
to its agricultural character and productiveness, and
shall immediately make rules and regulations for the improvement, and cultivation of the premises sold for a
Does the clause "subject to the limitations and
lease, sale, or other disposition of the public lands period of not less than five years, during which time the
conditions of this act" require a submission to Congress
of legislation concerning such land? If it does, then Act 14 is not limited to agricultural lands, as are sections For his answer to the complaint, the Director of Lands
No. 1120, which contains such provisions, is void, 13 and 15. It includes mineral and timber lands. So far denied each and every allegation contained therein
because it was never so submitted. as it relates to proceedings theretofore taken under and, as special defense, alleged that the land in
Spanish laws its benefits are not limited to natives of question was a property of the Government of the
Section 18 of the act of Congress provides the Islands nor to tracts not more than 16 hectares in United States under the administration and control of
as follows: extent. Where the only claim is possession, no the Philippine Islands before its sale to Angela Razon,
which was made in accordance with law.
possession for any definite time prior to August 13,
That the forest laws and regulations now in force in the 1898, is required, nor is proof of any possession
Philippine Islands, with such modifications and whatever after that date demanded. According to the After trial, whereat evidence was introduced by both
amendments as may be made by the Government of strict letter of the section a native would be entitled to parties, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga
said Islands, are hereby continued in force. a patent who proved that he had been in possession rendered judgment declaring the plaintiff entitled to
for the months of July and August only of 1898. It is not the possession of the land, annulling the sale made
Must these modifications and amendments be by the Director of Lands in favor of Angela Razon,
stated whether or not one who receives such a patent
submitted to Congress for its approval? If they must be, and ordering the cancellation of the certificate of title
must occupy the land for five years thereafter, as
then Act No. 1148, relating thereto, is void, because it issued to her, with the costs against Angela Razon.
required by section 15. Neither is it stated whether or From this judgment the Director of Lands took this
was not so submitted.
not a person who was in possession for the month of appeal, assigning thereto the following errors, to wit:
It seems very clear that rules and regulations August, 1898, would be entitled to a patent in (1) The holding that the judgment rendered in a prior
concerning mineral, timber, and coal lands, and lands preference to the actual settler spoken case between the plaintiff and defendant Angela
bought from religious orders need not be submitted to Razon on the parcel of land in question is controlling
The meaning of these sections is not clear, and it is in this action; (2) the holding that plaintiff is entitled to
Congress. If they are not inconsistent with the
difficult to give to them a construction that will be recover the possession of said parcel of land; the
provisions of the act of Congress relating to the same
entirely free from objection. But we do not think that annulment of the sale made by the Director of Lands
subjects, they are valid.
authority given by the Commission to issue to a native to Angela Razon; and the ordering that the certificate
Congress, by section 12 of the act, gave to the a patent for 16 hectares of land of which he was in of title issued by the register of deeds of the Province
Philippine Government general power all property possession during the month of August, 1898, was of Pampanga to Angela Razon by virtue of said sale
intended to limit the general power of control which by be cancelled; and (3) the denial of the motion for new
acquired from Spain. When it required the Commision
section 12 is given to the Commission. trial filed by the Director of Lands.
to immediately classify the agricultural lands and to
make rules and regulations for their sale, we do not
think that it intended to virtually repeal section 12. G.R. No. L-24066 December 9, 1925 The evidence shows that on December 18, 1880,
Such, however, would be the effect of the rule Nemesio Pinlac sold the land in question, then a fish
contended for by the Govenrment. If, notwithstanding pond, tho Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza for
VALENTIN SUSI, plaintiff-appellee, the sum of P12, reserving the right to repurchase the
the provisions of section 12, any law which in any way
vs. same (Exhibit B). After having been in possession
directly or indirectly affects injuriously the title of the ANGELA RAZON and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, thereof for about eight years, and the fish pond having
Government to public lands must be submitted to the defendants. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, appellant. been destroyed, Apolonio Garcia and Basilio
President and Congress for approval, the general Mendoza, on September 5, 1899, sold it to Valentin
power given by section 12 is taken away. Susi for the sum of P12, reserving the right to
This action was commenced in the Court of First
repurchase it (Exhibit A). Before the execution of the
There is nothing in section 14 which requires the rules Instance of Pampanga by a complaint filed by
deed of sale, Valentin Susi had already paid its price
and regulations therein mentioned to be submitted to Valentin Susi against Angela Razon and the Director
and sown "bacawan" on said land, availing himself of
Congress. But it is said that although as to Act No. 648 of Lands, praying for judgment: (a) Declaring plaintiff
the firewood gathered thereon, with the proceeds of
the sole and absolute owner of the parcel of land
submission to Congress was not required, it is the sale of which he had paid the price of the
described in the second paragraph of the complaint;
nevertheless void when applied to one not a native of property. The possession and occupation of the land
(b) annulling the sale made by the Director of Lands in
the Islands, because forbidden by this section; and that in question, first, by Apolonio Garcia and Basilio
favor of Angela Razon, on the ground that the land is
this section limits the power of the Commission to Mendoza, and then by Valentin Susi has been open,
a private property; (c) ordering the cancellation of the
declare possession alone sufficient evidence of title to continuous, adverse and public, without any
certificate of title issued to said Angela Razon; and (d)
cases in which the claimant is native and in which the interruption, except during the revolution, or
sentencing the latter to pay plaintiff the sum of P500
amount of land does not exceed 16 hectares. Section disturbance, except when Angela Razon, on
as damages, with the costs.
September 13, 1913, commenced an action in the the period of time being so long that it is beyond the affirmed in all its parts, without special
Court of First Instance of Pampanga to recover the reach of memory. These being the facts, the doctrine pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
possession of said land (Exhibit C), wherein after laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States
considering the evidence introduced at the trial, the in the case of Cariño vs. Government of the Philippine
G.R. No. L-3793 February 19, 1908
court rendered judgment in favor of Valentin Susi and Islands (212 U. S., 449 1), is applicable here. In favor
against Angela Razon, dismissing the complaint of Valentin Susi, there is, moreover, the
(Exhibit E). Having failed in her attempt to obtain presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph CIRILO MAPA, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE
possession of the land in question through the court, (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, respondent-appellant.
Angela Razon applied to the Director of Lands for the 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by
purchase thereof on August 15, 1914 (Exhibit C). the Government were complied with, for he has been
Attorney-General Araneta for appellant.
Having learned of said application, Valentin Susi filed in actual and physical possession, personally and
and opposition thereto on December 6, 1915, through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of Basilio R. Mapa for appellee.
asserting his possession of the land for twenty-five the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively
years (Exhibit P). After making the proper and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a FACTS:
administrative investigation, the Director of Lands certificate of title to said land under the provisions of
overruled the opposition of Valentin Susi and sold the Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon The petitioner registered a tract of land of
land to Angela Razon. By virtue of said grant the applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had about 16 hectares in extent, situated in Iloilo.
register of deeds of Pampanga, on August 31, 1921, already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right
issued the proper certificate of title to Angela Razon. to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not
Armed with said document, Angela Razon required necessary that certificate of title should be issued in
Valentin Susi to vacate the land in question, and as order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, From the evidence adduced, it appears that
he refused to do so, she brought and action for an application therefore is sufficient, under the the land in question is lowland, and has been
forcible entry and detainer in the justice of the peace provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal interruptedly, for more than 20 years in the
court of Guagua, Pampanga, which was dismissed for fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question possession of the petitioner and ancestors as owners
lack of jurisdiction, the case being one of title to real by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be and the same has been used during the same period,
property (Exhibit F and M). Valentin Susi then brought the public domain and had become private property, and up to the present as fish ponds, nipa lands and
this action. at least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the
salt deposits. The witnesses declare the land as far
control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in
selling the land in question to Angela Razon, the from the sea, the town of Molo being between the sea
With these facts in view, we shall proceed to consider and the said land.
Director of Lands disposed of a land over which he
the questions raised by the appellant in his
had no longer any title or control, and the sale thus
assignments of error.lawphi1.net
made was void and of no effect, and Angela Razon
did not thereby acquire any right.
The claim of the Attorney General seems to
It clearly appears from the evidence that Valentin Susi
has been in possession of the land in question openly, be that no lands can be called agricultural lands
The Director of Lands contends that the land in unless they are such by their nature. He claims that it
continuously, adversely, and publicly, personally and
question being of the public domain, the plaintiff- is not an agricultural land and, therefore, cannot be
through his predecessors, since the year 1880, that is,
appellee cannot maintain an action to recover disposed of nor can be allowed for homestead.
for about forty-five years. While the judgment of the
possession thereof.lawphi1.net
Court of First Instance of Pampanga against Angela
Razon in the forcible entry case does not affect the
Director of Lands, yet it is controlling as to Angela If, as above stated, the land, the possession of which
Razon and rebuts her claim that she had been in is in dispute, had already become, by operation of Judgment was rendered in favor of the
possession thereof. When on August 15, 1914, law, private property of the plaintiff, there lacking only petitioner and the government has appealed.
Angela Razon applied for the purchase of said land, the judicial sanction of his title, Valentin Susi has the
Valentin Susi had already been in possession thereof right to bring an action to recover possession thereof
personally and through his predecessors for thirty-four and hold it.
years. And if it is taken into account that Nemesio A motion for new trial was made and denied
Pinlac had already made said land a fish pond when in the court below.
For the foregoing, and no error having been found in
he sold it on December 18, 1880, it can hardly be
the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby
estimated when he began to possess and occupy it,
The decision of the Court was favor of Mapa and the Government has appealed. A 3. Effect if agricultural land is taken to
based upon Act No. 926, Sec. 54, par. 6, motion for a new trial was made and denied in the mean exclusively to be that of its nature,
which provides that, “All persons who by lower court, but no exception was taken to the order as claim by attorney-general
themselves All persons who by themselves denying it. Appeal was made before the Supreme
or their predecessors in interest have been Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of The claim of the Attorney-General seems to be
in the open, continuous exclusive, and the court below, with the costs against the appellant. that no lands can be called agricultural lands
notorious possession and occupation of unless they are such by their nature. If the
agricultural public lands, as defined by said 1. Ruling of the lower court in relation to contention of the Attorney-General is correct,
act of Congress of July first, nineteen Section 54, paragraph 6 of Act 926 and this land because of its nature is not
hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of agricultural land. It could not allow the land to be
ownership except as against the Section 54, paragraph 6 of Act 926 provides that entered as a homestead, for Chapter I of Act 926
Government, for a period of ten years next “all persons who by themselves or their allows the entry of homesteads only upon
preceding the taking effect of this act, predecessors in interest have been in the open, “agricultural public lands” in the Philippine
except when prevented by war, or force continuous exclusive, and notorious possession Islands, as defined by the act of Congress of 1
majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to and occupation of agricultural public lands, as July 1902. It could not sell it in accordance with
have performed all the conditions essential defined by said act of Congress of 1 July 1902, the provisions of Chapter II of Act 926, for
to a Government grant and to have under a bona fide claim of ownership except as section 10 only authorizes the sale of
received the same, and shall be entitled to against the Government, for a period of 10 years “unreserved nonmineral agricultural public land
a certificate of title to such land under the next preceding the taking effect of this act, in the Philippine Islands, as defined in the act of
provisions of this chapter. except when prevented by war, or force majeure, Congress of 1 July 1902. It could not lease it in
shall be conclusively presumed to have accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of
performed all the conditions essential to a the said act, for section 22 relating to leases
ISSUE:
Government grant and to have received the limits them to “nonmineral public lands, as
same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title defined by section 18 and 20 of the act of
to such land under the provisions of this Congress of 1 July 1902. The Government could
W/N the land in controversy is agricultural chapter.” In the present case, the lower court not give a free patent to this land to a native
ruled that “from the evidence adduced it appears settler, in accordance with the provisions of
land within the meaning of Act. No. 926?
that the land in question is lowland, and has Chapter IV, for that relates only to “agricultural
been uninterruptedly, for more than twenty years, public land, as defined by act of Congress of 1
in the possession of the petitioner and his July 1902.
HELD: ancestors as owners and the same has been
used during the said period, and up to the 4. Section 13 and 15 of the Act provides
Yes. present, as fish ponds, nipa lands, and salt only semblance of the definition of the
deposits. The witnesses declare that the land is phrase
The phrase “agricultural public lands” defined by the far from the sea, the town of Molo being between
Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which phrase is also the sea and the said land.” Section 13 provides that “the Government of the
Philippine Islands, subject to the provisions of
to be found in several section of the Public Land Act
2. Definition of agricultural land as used in this act and except as herein provided, shall
No. 926, means those public lands acquired from
Act 926 rather its meaning as to its classify according to its agricultural character
Spain, which are neither mineral nor timber lands. nature and productiveness, and shall immediately make
rules and regulations for the lease, sale, or other
The issue is not what is agricultural land, but disposition of the public lands other than timber
what definition has been given to that phrase by or mineral lands, but such rules and regulations
Mapa v. Insular Government [G.R. No. L-3793.
the act of Congress. The phrase “agricultural shall not go into effect of have the force of law
February 19, 1908.] First Division, Willard (J): 2
public lands” as defined by the act of Congress until they have received the approval of the
concur, 1 concur in result
of 1 July 1902 is found not only in section 54 but President, and when approved by the President
in other parts of Act 926, and it seems that the they shall be submitted by him to Congress at
Facts: Mapa sought to register a tract of land of about
same construction must be given to the phrase the beginning of the next ensuing session thereof
16 hectares in extent, situated in the barrio San
wherever it occurs in any part of that law. and unless disapproved or amended by
Antonio, Mandurriao, municipality of Iloilo before the
Congress at said session they shall at the close
Court of Land Registration. Judgment was rendered in
of such period have the force and effect of law in of agricultural land, and that therefore Section 54 summarily determine from available records
the Philippine Islands: Provided, That a single paragraph 6, Act 926 was applicable thereto. whether the land is or is not mineral and does
homestead entry shall not exceed 16 hectares in not contain deposits of coal or salts. Section 34
extent.” On the other hand, Section 15 provides 6. Construction of the phrase “agricultural relating to free patents to native settlers makes
that “the Government of the Philippine Islands is land” cannot be left to remain uncertain no provision for any determination by the Chief of
hereby authorized and empowered on such Bureau of Public Lands in regard to the character
terms as it may prescribe, by general legislation, The objection to adopting the construction on of the land applied for.
to provide for the granting or sale and account of its uncertainty is emphasized when it
conveyance to actual occupants and settlers and is consider that whether certain land was or was 8. Jones v. Insular Government not
other citizens of said Islands such parts and not agricultural land would be a question that conflicting; character of land not raised
portions of the public domain, other than timber would finally have to be determined by the in that case, but the law pertaining to
and mineral lands, of the United States in said courts, unless there is some express provision of agricultural lands
Islands as it may deem wise, not exceeding the law authorizing the administrative officers to
sixteen hectares to any one person and for the determine the question for themselves. After There is nothing in this case of Jones vs. The
sale and conveyance of not more than one homesteads have been entered, lands, sold, and Insular Government which at all conflicts with the
thousand and twenty-four hectares to any leases made by the administrative officers result here arrived at. The question as to whether
corporation or association of persons: Provided, (pursuant to Section 2 of Act 926, Section 13, the lands there involved were or were not
that the grant or sale of such lands, whether the Section 26, Section 34) on the theory that the agricultural lands within the meaning of the
purchase price be paid at once or in partial lands were agricultural lands by their nature, to sections was neither discussed nor decided. In
payments shall be conditioned upon actual and leave the matter of their true character open for fact, it appears from the decision that those
continued occupancy, improvement, and subsequent action by the courts would be to lands, which were in the Province of Benguet,
cultivation of the premises sold for a period of not produce an evil that should if possible be were within the strictest definition of the phrase
less than five years, during which time the avoided. The construction of the phrase would “agricultural lands.” It appears that such lands
purchaser or grantee can not alienate or never be entirely free from objection, but the had been cultivated for more than twelve years.
encumber said land or the title thereto; but such Court believes that the construction adopted is What that case decided was, not that the lands
restriction shall not apply to transfers of rights less objectionable than any other one that has therein involved and other lands referred to in the
and title of inheritance under the laws for the been suggested. decision by way of illustration were not
distribution of the estates of decedents.” Neither agricultural lands but that the law there in
one of these sections gives any express 7. Power to determine nature of land by question and the other laws mentioned therein
definition of the phrase “agricultural land.” Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands were not rules and regulations within the
pursuant to Act 926 meaning of section 13.
5. Method to deciding the question whether
land is agricultural land; Agricultural Section 2 of Act 926 relating to homesteads CORNELIO RAMOS VS DIRECTOR OF LANDS
land are those public lands acquired provides that the Chief of The Bureau of Public GR 13298 - 1918
from Spain which are neither mineral or Lands shall summarily determine whether the
timber lands land described is prima facie under the law Facts:
subject to homestead settlement. Section 13,  In 1882, Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently
There seem to be only 3 possible ways of relating to the sale of public lands, provides gained possession of a tract of land located in
deciding the question whether the land is simply that the Chief of the Bureau of Public the municipality of San Jose, Province of
agricultural. The first is to say that no definition of Lands shall determine from the certificate of the Nueva Ecija.
the phrase “agricultural land” can be found in the Chief of the Bureau of Forestry whether the land  Ponce obtained a possessory information title
act of Congress; the second, that there is a applied for is more valuable for agricultural than of the land (by taking advantage of the Maura
definition of that phrase in the act and that it for timber purposes, but it says nothing about his Law or Royal Decree of Feb. 13, 1994) and
means land which in its nature is agricultural; decisions as to whether it is or is not agricultural registered the land in 1896.
and, third, that there is a definition in the act and land in its nature. Section 26 relating to the lease
that the phrase means all of the public lands of public lands provides that the Chief of the
 In 1907, the part of the land (Parcel 1) was
sold by Ponce to petitioner Ramos and to his
acquired from Spain except those which are Bureau of Public Lands shall determine from the
wife Ambrosia Salamanca.
mineral or timber lands. The court below adopted certificate of the Chief of the Bureau of Forestry
the latter view, and held that the land, not being whether the land applied for is more valuable for  Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to
timber or mineral land, came within the definition agricultural than for timber purposes and further have his title registered.
 The Director of Lands and Director of Forestry except when prevented by war or force majeure, shall
opposed the application on the following be conclusively presumed to have performed all the
grounds: Ramos had not acquired a good title conditions essential to a government grant and to have
from the Spanish government; The first parcel received the same, and shall be entitled to a certificate
was forest land. of title to such land under the provisions of this chapter.
 RTC and CA ruled against Ramos.
There was no satisfactory evidence to support the
 It has been seen however that the
claim that the land is a forest land
predecessor in interest to Ramos at least held
Forest reserves of public land can be established as
this tract of land under color of title.
provided by law. When the claim of the citizen and the
claim of the Government as to a particular piece of
Issue: Is that actual occupancy of a part of the land
property collide, if the Government desires to
described in the instrument giving color of title
demonstrate that the land is in reality a forest, the
sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?
Director of Forestry should submit to the court
convincing proof that the land is not more valuable for
Held: YES.
agricultural than for forest purposes.
The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the
answer. The general rule is that the possession and
Great consideration, it may be stated, should, and
cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of
undoubtedly will be, paid by the courts to the opinion of
ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if
the technical expert who speaks with authority on
the remainder is not in the adverse possession of
forestry matters. But a mere formal opposition on the
another.
part of the Attorney-General for the Director of
Forestry, unsupported by satisfactory evidence will not
Ramos has a color of title, is in good faith and had
stop the courts from giving title to the claimant.
been in OPN possesion
The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith;
Ruling:
and he has had open, peaceable, and notorious
possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to  Ramos proved a title to the entire tract of land
apprise the community and the world that the land was for which he asked registration, under the
for his enjoyment. provisions of subsection 6, of section 54, of
Act No. 926, as amended by Act No. 1908,
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that with reference to the Philippine Bill and the
a man has to have his feet on every square meter of Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and
ground before it can be said that he is in possession. Ponce’s possessory information.
Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the  RTC shall register in the name of the applicant
requirements of the law on the supposition that he the entire tract in parcel No. 1, as described in
premises consisted of agricultural public land. plan Exhibit A.

Important law: Act NO. 926


Subsection 6 of section 54, of Act No. 926, entitled The
Public Land Law, as amended by Act No. 1908, reads
as follows:

6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors


and interest have been in the open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
agricultural public lands, as defined by said Act of
Congress of July 1, 1902, under a bona fide claim of
ownership except as against the Government, for a
period of 10 years next preceding the twenty-sixth day
of July, nineteen hundred and four (July 26, 1904),

You might also like