Republic of the Philippines (Represented by the Director of Lands) - petitioner

versus The Register of Deeds of Quezon, Manuel Atienza, Development Bank of the Philippines,
Intermediate Appellate Court - respondents
GR No. 73974/May 31, 1995

Facts:

The Court of First Instance annulled the Original Certificate and Free Patent issued to Manuel Atienza for
a 17-hectare piece of land which turned out to be within the forest zone. On appeal Atienza, one of the
respondents maintained that the land in question was no longer within the unclassified public forest land
because of the approval of his free patent and therefore alienable land of the public domain. He also
asserted that he had been in possession of the land since Japanese occupation, cultivating it and
introducing improvements thereon. In fact, the DBP after investigation and inspection of his title even
granted him a loan with the subject property as collateral. Relying only on his arguments, the Intermediate
Appellate Court set aside the lower court’s decision. However, the procedural requirement to serve copies
of the brief upon the adverse party was not made. The OSG as government counsel had not been furnished
with appellants’ brief and had not been informed by the action taken by the Bureau of Lands. Thus, the
petitioner in this case seeks to nullify and set aside the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court for
reversing the decision of the lower court.

Issue: Whether or not the land in question could be alienated and disposed of in favor Atienza.

Held:

No.

Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise clearly appearing to be privately owned are
presumed to belong to the State. Forests lands, like mineral or timber lands which are public lands are not
subject to private ownership unless they, under Constitution, become private properties. In the absence of
such classifications, the land remains unclassified public land until released therefrom and rendered open
to disposition.

In the present case, Atienza failed to state that the land sought to be registered still formed part of the
unclassified forests. This contemplates an action of procuring the title by fraud. His failure constitutes an
intentional omission of fact required by law. Atienza also failed to present proof that he or his predecessor
in interest was one of the claimants.

Hence, by failing to present clear, positive and absolute evidence to overcome the said presumption and to
support his claim the decision was reversed and set aside and the decision of the Court of First Instance is
reinstated.