1. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, petitioner, vs.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FOREST
RUPERTO A. VILLAREAL, respondent.
G.R. No. 32266. February 27, 1989
FACTS:
The petitioner, Director of Forestry was one of the
several persons who opposed the application for
registration of a parcel land classified as mangrove
swamps in the municipality of Sapian, Capiz with an
area of 178,113 sqm of mangrove swamps, to the
applicant Ruperto Villareal. He alleged that he and
his predecessors in interests had been in possession
of the said parcel of land for more than forty years
both parties agreed in one point that the disputed
land was a mangrove swamp. The respondent
argued that mangrove swamp are agricultural land
but the petitioner contended that it is a forestall land
therefore not disposable. The Court of the First
instance of Capiz however grants the application of
the respondent. The decision of the lower court was
later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence the
Director of Forestry elevated the case to the
Supreme Court for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
What is the legal classification of mangrove swamps?
RULING:
Mangrove swamps or manglares should be
understood as comprised within the public forests of
the Philippines as defined in the aforecited Section
1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917. The
legislature having so determined, we have no
authority to ignore or modify its decision, and in
effect veto it, in the exercise of our own discretion.
The statutory definition remains unchanged to date
and, no less noteworthy is accepted and invoked by
the executive department. More importantly, the
said provision has not been challenged as arbitrary
or unrealistic or unconstitutional, assuming the
requisite conditions, to justify our judicial
intervention and scrutiny. The law is thus presumed
valid and so must be respected. As such, they are not
alienable under the Constitution and may not be the
subject of private ownership until and unless they
are first released as forest land and classified as
alienable agricultural land.
DEVELOPMENT, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS and ANTONIO VALERIANO, GABRIELA
VALERIANO VDA. DE LA CRUZ, LETICIA A.
VALERIANO and MARISSA VALERIANO DE LA ROSA,
respondents.
GR No. L-58867. June 22, 1984
FACTS:
In their application for registration filed on May 10,
1976, private respondents (Applicants) claimed that
they are the co-owners in fee simple of the land
applied for partly through inheritance in 1918 and
partly by purchase on May 2, 1958; that it is not
within any forest zone or military reservation; and
that the same is assessed for taxation purposes in
their names.
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Director of the Bureau of Forest Development
opposed the application on the principal ground that
the land applied for is within the unclassified region
of Obando, Bulacan, per BF Map LC No. 637 dated
March 1, 1927; and that areas within the unclassified
region are denominated as forest lands and do not
form part of the disposable and alienable portion of
the public domain.
After hearing, the Trial Court ordered registration of
the subject land in favor of the Applicants. This was
affirmed on appeal by respondent Appellate Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Courts can reclassify the subject
public land.
RULING:
NO. The classification of public lands is an exclusive
prerogative of the Executive Department of the
Government and not of the Courts. In the absence of
such classification, the land remains as unclassified
land until it is released therefrom and rendered open
to disposition. This should be so under time-honored
Constitutional precepts. This is also in consonance
with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public
domain belong to the State, and that the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership in land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
REPUBLIC V CA
GR NO. 127060 November 18, 2002
FACTS:
Apolinar Ceniza was the declared owner in 1948 of
Lot No. 1104, located at Cabancalan, Mandaue City,
under Tax Declaration No. 01686. When he died, his
heirs took possession of the property and in 1960
partitioned the same through a deed of extrajudicial
partition.
Private respondent Florentino Ceniza purchased the
shares of his sisters Manuela and Mercedes and the
share pertaining to the siblings Jesusa, Benjamin and
Delfin. Together with his share, Florentino became
the owner of Lot Nos. 1104-A&C and had them tax
declared in his name.
On November 4, 1986, private respondents applied
for registration of their respective titles over the
property they inherited from Apolinar Ceniza, with
the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City. Petitioner
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office
of the Solicitor General opposed the application
In a decision dated February 28, 1990, the Regional
Trial Court of Mandaue City granted the
application.4 It held that since the applicants’
possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years
was continuous, peaceful, adverse, public and to the
exclusion of everybody, the same was "in the
concept of owners." Since the land was neither
encumbered nor subject to any other application for
registration, the trial court ordered that, upon the
finality of its decision, the decrees of registration
should be issued in favor of the applicants. The
Solicitor General interposed an appeal for petitioner
Republic of the Philippines before the Court of
Appeals.
In a decision dated September 28, 1994, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It
held that the ruling in Director of Lands v. Court of
Appeals, that before public land could be registered
in the name of a private individual, it must first be
established that the land had been classified
alienable and disposable, "refers to public lands and
not to those which have acquired the nature of a
private property in view of the continuous
possession thereof by its claimants."
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in holding that private
respondents have registerable title to the lots in
question
RULING:
YES. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that
mere adverse possession in accordance with law for
a period likewise provided for by law would
automatically entitle the possessor to the right to
register public land in his name. The applicant has to
establish first the disposable and alienable character
of the public land. Otherwise, all public lands,
regardless of their classification, can be subject of
registration of private titles, as long as the applicant
shows that he meets the required years of
possession.
Where public land will be classified as neither
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or natural park,
or when public land is no longer intended for public
service or for the development of national wealth,
thereby effectively removing the land from the ambit
of public dominion, a declaration of such conversion
must be made in the form of law duly enacted by
Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases
where the President is duly authorized by law to that
effect.
REPUBLIC V. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC.
GR 154953, June 26, 2008
FACTS:
This case originated from an Application for Original
Registration of Title filed by T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
covering Lot 10705-B of the subdivision plan Csd-04-
019741 which is a portion of the consolidated Lot
10705, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre. All adjoining
owners and all government agencies and offices
concerned were notified of the initial hearing.
In this case, respondent submitted two certifications
issued by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). The 3 June 1997
Certification by the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Offices (CENRO), Batangas
City,[16] certified that "lot 10705, Cad-424, Sto.
Tomas Cadastre situated at Barangay San Bartolome,
Sto. Tomas, Batangas with an area of 596,116 square
meters falls within the ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE
ZONE under Project No. 30, Land Classification Map
No. 582 certified [on] 31 December 1925." The
second certification in the form of a memorandum to
the trial court, which was issued by the Regional
Technical Director, Forest Management Services of
the DENR (FMS-DENR), stated "that the subject area
falls within an alienable and disposable land, Project
No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31,
1925 per LC No. 582."
On 15 November 1999, the trial court issued an
Order of General Default against the whole world
except as against petitioner. In its 16 December 1999
Decision, the trial court adjudicated the land in favor
of respondent.
Petitioner appealed from the trial court's Decision.
Petitioner alleged that the trial court erred in
granting the application for registration absent clear
evidence that the applicant and its predecessors-in-
interest have complied with the period of possession
and occupation as required by law.
In its August 21, 2002 decision, the Court of Appeals
affirmed in toto the trial court's Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether the land is alienable and disposable.
RULING:
Respondent Failed to prove that the Land is Alienable
and Disposable. The certifications are not sufficient.
A CENRO certification is insufficient to prove the
alienable and disposable character of the land
sought to be registered. The applicant must also
show sufficient proof that the DENR Secretary has
approved the land classification and released the
land in question as alienable and disposable.
REPUBLIC V. BAUTISTA VDA. DE JOSON
GR 163767, Mar. 10, 2014
FACTS:
An application for land registration was filed in the
CFI in Bulacan by herein Respondent. The subject
property was a riceland with an area of 12,342 sq.m.
known as Lot 2633, Cad-297, Paombong, Bulacan. It
was originally owned and possessed by one
MamertoDionision since 1907 and was, thereafter,
sold to Romualda Jacinto in 1926. Upon the death of
Romualda Jacinto, her sister Maria Jacinto (mother
of the respondent) inherited the land. Thereafter,
upon the death of Maria Jacinto in 1963, respondent
had herself inherited the land, owning and
possessing it openly, publicly, uninterruptedly,
adversely against the whole world, and in the
concept of owner since then. Taxes due thereon had
been paid as well.
The CFI ordered the registration of the land in favor
of respondent on the ground that she had sufficiently
established her open, public, continuous and
adverse possession in the concept of an owner for
more than 30 years. The OSG appealed to the CA and
alleged that subject land is a part of the unclassified
region denominated as forest land of Paombong,
Bulacan. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial
court.
ISSUE:
Whether the land subject of the application for
registration is susceptible of private acquisition.
RULING
No. The applicant failed to present evidence that the
subject land had been declared alienable and
disposable by the State.
The applicant for land registration must prove that
the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public
domain as alienable and disposable and that the land
subject of the application for registration falls within
the approved area per verification through survey by
the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for
land registration must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records.
VALENTIN SUSI, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGELA
RAZON and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, defendants.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, appellant.
G.R. No. L-24066 December 9, 1925
FACTS
On December 18, 1880, Nemesio Pinlac sold the land
in question, then a fish pond, tho Apolonio Garcia
and Basilio Mendoza for the sum of P12, reserving
the right to repurchase the same. After having been
in possession thereof for about eight years, and the
fish pond having been destroyed, Apolonio Garcia
and Basilio Mendoza, on September 5, 1899, sold it
to Valentin Susi for the sum of P12, reserving the
right to repurchase it.
Before the execution of the deed of sale, Valentin
Susi had already paid its price and sown "bacawan"
on said land, availing himself of the firewood
gathered thereon, with the proceeds of the sale of
which he had paid the price of the property. The
possession and occupation of the land in question,
first, by Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza, and
then by Valentin Susi has been open, continuous,
adverse and public, without any interruption, except
during the revolution, or disturbance, except when
Angela Razon, on September 13, 1913, commenced
an action in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga
to recover the possession of said land, wherein after
considering the evidence introduced at the trial, the
court rendered judgment in favor of Valentin Susi
and against Angela Razon, dismissing the complaint.
Having failed in her attempt to obtain possession of
the land in question through the court, Angela Razon
applied to the Director of Lands for the purchase
thereof on August 15, 1914. Having learned of said
application, Valentin Susi filed and opposition
thereto on December 6, 1915, asserting his
possession of the land for twenty-five years. After
making the proper administrative investigation, the
Director of Lands overruled the opposition of
Valentin Susi and sold the land to Angela Razon. By
virtue of said grant the register of deeds of
Pampanga, on August 31, 1921, issued the proper
certificate of title to Angela Razon. Armed with said
document, Angela Razon required Valentin Susi to
vacate the land in question, and as he refused to do
so, she brought and action for forcible entry and
detainer in the justice of the peace court of Guagua,
Pampanga, which was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, the case being one of title to real
property.
Susi then filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga. Then, the CFI rendered
judgment declaring the plaintiff entitled to the
possession of the land, annulling the sale made by
the Director of Lands in favor of Angela Razon, and
ordering the cancellation of the certificate of title
issued to her, with the costs against Angela Razon.
The Director of Lands contends that the land in
question being of the public domain, the plaintiff-
appellee cannot maintain an action to recover
possession thereof.
ISSUE
Whether the land in question if part of the public
domain.
RULING:
No. The presumption juris et de jure established in
paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874,
amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary
requirements for a grant by the Government were
complied with, for he has been in actual and physical
possession, personally and through his predecessors,
of an agricultural land of the public domain openly,
continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26,
1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land
under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So
that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her
favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by
operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a
grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that
certificate of title should be issued in order that said
grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an
application therefore is sufficient, under the
provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal
fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in
question by a grant of the State, it had already
ceased to be the public domain and had become
private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin
Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands.