Topic: Only Alienable & Disposable Lands may be the Subject of Disposition

BUREAU OF FORESTRY, BUREAU OF LANDS and PHILIPPINE FISHERIES

COMMISSION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENO
GALLO, respondents.
G.R. No. L-37995 │ August 31, 1987 PARAS, J:

FACTS: [Original Application for Land Title]

In 1961, Mercedes Diago sought for the registration of four (4) parcels of land
with a total area of 30.5943 hectares which she accordingly bought from her
predecessor-in-interest who acquired said land in 1934. The Director of Lands and
Director of Forestry respectively opposed the application as regard to the portion
constituting 19.4080 hectares on the ground that Mercedes herself and her
predecessors-in-interest have no sufficient title over the lands which could be
registered under the Torrens systems and that said portions are mangrove swamps
and within a Timberland. In 1965, respondent Filomeno Gallo purchased the subject
parcels of land from Mercedes Diago and thereafter substituted the latter in the
registration proceedings with his Amended Application for Registration of Title. On the
other hand, Philippine Fisheries Commission substituted the Bureau of Forestry since
the supervision and control of the contested portion of lands subject of the registration
proceedings have been transferred on them.

The trial court subsequently ordered the registration of the subject lands,
excluding only portions constituting the site of municipal hall as well as the 15-meter
width road-of-way. Petitioners appealed the decision contending that the controverted
portion of lands subject for registration are needed for forest purposes as evidenced
by the Certification issued by the Director of Forestry in 1956. However, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court and reasoned that the subject lands have
already been in possession of private individuals for a long time and petitioners failed
to adduce competent proofs to validate the question of fact that the controverted
portion of land is a forest land and more valuable to be so than to be disposed for
agricultural purposes.
.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT forest lands as certified by the Director of Forestry may be
subject of prescription and registration proceedings.

RULING:
No, the Supreme Court ruled that the controverted portion of lands subject of
registration have been classified and certified in 1956 by the Director of Forestry as
lands needed for forest purposes, thus are deemed part of public domain and non-
registerable.

The classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable

mineral or forest lands is within the discretion of the Executive Department of the
government, through the Office of the President as provided under Section 6 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act. On the other hand, Section 1816
of the Revised Administrative Code expressly provides that the Bureau of Forestry that
has jurisdiction and authority over all public forests and forest reservations. Further,
the court ruled in the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abella, 49 Phil.
49, that that the classification of forestry or mineral lands need not be resolved in each
land registration case when prior to the intervention of private interest, the Bureau of
Forestry which has the authority conferred upon it by law has already reserved the
land for such purposes. In the case of Republic vs. Animas, 56 SCRA 499, the court
upheld the constitutional prohibition on the alienation and disposition of timber or forest
lands. Thus, the rule of prescription cannot be applied in the instant case to claim
ownership over lands which are deemed public domain because it has been a settled
principle that possession of the same no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership.