Director of Lands vs CA and Bisnar
 Classification of lands belong to the executive and not of
Facts:
 On July 20, 1976, Bisnar filed to have two parcels of land
registered under their name (284, 424 sq. m. and 345, 385
sq. m.)
 They alleged that they had inherited the land and have
been paying taxes for it
 On December 16, 1976 the Director of Lands opposed the
registration on the grounds that:
o Respondents does not sufficient title to acquire
ownership or titles issue by the Spanish gov’t
o Respondents and predecessor in interest did not
have open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of said lands for 30 years
o Subject lots belong to public domain
RTC Ruling:
 In favor of the respondents
 That respondents have been in open, public, continuous,
peaceful and adverse possession of the subject parcels of
land under bona fide claims of ownership for more than
eighty (80) years (not only 30) prior to the filing of the
application for registration, introduced improvements on
the lands by planting coconuts, bamboos and other plants,
and converted a part of the land into productive fishpond
CA ruling:
 Affirmed RTC ruling in toto
 It held that the classification of the lots as timberland by
the Director of Forestry cannot prevail in the absence of
proof that the said lots are indeed more valuable as forest
land than as agricultural land, citing as authority the case
of Ankron vs. Government of the Philippine Islands
Petitioner’s Appeal to SC:
the courts
 That possession of forest lands no matter how long, cannot
ripen into private ownership
 That respondents have burden of proof that they have met
the requirement of Sec. 48 of CA 141
Issue:
 WON respondents have met the requirement of Sec. 48 of
CA 141
Held:
 No, it is not the court which determines the classification
of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or
mineral but the Executive Branch of the government,
through the Office of the President. Hence, it was grave
error and/or abuse of discretion for respondent court to
ignore the uncontroverted facts that (1) the disputed area
is within a timberland block, and (2) as certified to by the
then Director of Forestry, the area is needed for forest
purposes. (Bureau of Forestry vs CA)
 It needs a positive act from the gov’t to declassify lands
that are classified as forest and convert it to alienable and
disposable lands
 Possession of a forestry land no matter how long cannot
ripen into private ownership (Imprescriptible)
 In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant
shoulders the burden of proving that he meets the
requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended by Republic Act 1942. He must overcome the
presumption that the land he is applying for is part of the
public domain but that he has an interest therein sufficient
to warrant registration in his name because of an imperfect
title such as those derived from old Spanish grants or that
he has had continuous, open and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under
a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for at least
thirty (30) years preceding the filing of his application.