Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

SLCRL1ARY OI 1HL DLPAR1MLN1 OI LNVIRONMLN1 AND

NA1URAL RLSOURCLS, et al. v. MAYOR JOSL S. YAP, et al.


G.R. No. J67707, 08 October 2008, LN BANC, (Reyes, R.1., J.)

1be bvraev of roof iv orercovivg tbe re.vvtiov of tate orver.bi of tbe tava. of tbe vbtic aovaiv i. ov tbe
er.ov at,ivg for regi.tratiov ;or ctaivivg orver.bi), rbo vv.t rore tbat tbe tava .vb;ect of tbe aticatiov i. atievabte
or ai.o.abte. 1o orercove tbi. re.vvtiov, ivcovtrorertibte eriaevce vv.t be e.tabti.bea tbat tbe tava .vb;ect of tbe
aticatiov ;or ctaiv) i. atievabte or ai.o.abte. 1bere vv.t .titt be a o.itire act aectarivg tava of tbe vbtic aovaiv a.
atievabte ava ai.o.abte. 1o rore tbat tbe tava .vb;ect of av aticatiov for regi.tratiov i. atievabte, tbe aticavt vv.t
e.tabti.b tbe ei.tevce of a o.itire act of tbe gorervvevt .vcb a. a re.iaevtiat roctavatiov or av eecvtire oraer; av
aavivi.tratire actiov; ivre.tigatiov reort. of vreav of ava. ivre.tigator.; ava a tegi.tatire act or a .tatvte. 1be
aticavt va, at.o .ecvre a certificatiov frov tbe gorervvevt tbat tbe tava ctaivea to bare beev o..e..ea for tbe reqvirea
vvvber of ,ear. i. atievabte ava ai.o.abte.

On Noember 10, J978, then President lerdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. J80J
declaring Boracay Island as tourist zones and marine reserves under the administration o the
Philippine 1ourism Authority ,P1A,. Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and P1A Circular No 3-82
precluded them rom iling an application or judicial conirmation o imperect title or surey o land
or titling purposes, respondents-claimants Mayor Jose S. \ap, Jr., et at. iled a petition or declaratory
relie with the Regional 1rial Court in Kalibo, Aklan.

Respondents-claimants posited that Proclamation No. 1801 and its implementing Circular did
not place Boracay beyond the commerce o man. Since the Island was classiied as a tourist zone, it was
susceptible o priate ownership.

1he Republic, through the Oice o the Solicitor General ,OSG,, opposed the petition or
declaratory relie. 1he OSG countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land o the public
domain. It ormed part o the mass o lands classiied as public orest,` which was not aailable or
disposition pursuant to Section 3,a, o Presidential Decree ,PD, No. 05 or the Reised lorestry Code,
as amended. 1he OSG maintained that respondents-claimants` reliance on PD No. 1801 and P1A
Circular No. 3-82 was misplaced. 1heir right to judicial conirmation o title was goerned by
Commonwealth Act CA 141 ,CA 141, and PD No. 05. Since Boracay Island had not been classiied as
alienable and disposable, whateer possession they had cannot ripen into ownership.

On May 22, 2006 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064

classiying
Boracay Island into our hundred ,400, hectares o resered orest land ,protection purposes, and six
hundred twenty-eight and 96,100 ,628.96, hectares o agricultural land ,alienable and disposable,.

Petitioners-claimants Dr. Orlando Sacay et at. iled with the Supreme Court an original petition
or prohibition, mandamus, and nulliication o Proclamation No. 1064. 1hey allege that the
Proclamation inringed on their prior ested rights` oer portions o Boracay. 1hey hae been in
continued possession o their respectie lots in Boracay since time immemorial. 1hey hae also inested
billions o pesos in deeloping their lands and building internationally renowned irst class resorts on
their lots.

Petitioners-claimants contended that there is no need or a proclamation reclassiying Boracay
into agricultural land. Being classiied as neither mineral nor timber land, the island is deemed
agricultural pursuant to the Philippine Bill o 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the irst Public Land Act.
1hus, their possession in the concept o owner or the required period entitled them to judicial
conirmation o imperect title.

Opposing the petition, the OSG argued that petitioners-claimants do not hae a ested right
oer their occupied portions in the island. Boracay is an unclassiied public orest land pursuant to
Section 3,a, o PD No. 05. Being public orest, the claimed portions o the island are inalienable and
cannot be the subject o judicial conirmation o imperect title. It is only the executie department, not
the courts, which has authority to reclassiy lands o the public domain into alienable and disposable
lands. 1here is a need or a positie goernment act in order to release the lots or disposition.

ISSUL:

\hether or not priate claimants hae a right to secure titles oer their occupied portions in
Boracay

HLLD:
Petition GRAN1LD.

1he Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands o the public domain belong to the State, that the
State is the source o any asserted right to ownership o land and charged with the conseration o such
patrimony. 1he doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 193, and 198 Constitutions.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within priate ownership are presumed to belong
to the State. 1hus, all lands that hae not been acquired rom the goernment, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part o the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to
determine i lands o the public domain will be disposed o or priate ownership. 1he goernment, as
the agent o the state, is possessed o the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be
the aored recipients o public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such priilege,
not excluding the placing o obstacles in the way o their exercise o what otherwise would be ordinary
acts o ownership.

A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required

In keeping with the presumption o State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized
that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an oicial proclamation, declassiying
inalienable public land into disposable land or agricultural or other purposes. In act, Section 8 o CA
141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which hae been oicially delimited and
classiied.`

1he burden o proo in oercoming the presumption o State ownership o the lands o the
public domain is on the person applying or registration ,or claiming ownership,, who must proe that
the land subject o the application is alienable or disposable. 1o oercome this presumption,
incontroertible eidence must be established that the land subject o the application ,or claim, is
alienable or disposable. 1here must still be a positie act declaring land o the public domain as alienable
and disposable. 1o proe that the land subject o an application or registration is alienable, the
applicant must establish the existence o a positie act o the goernment such as a presidential
proclamation or an executie order, an administratie action, inestigation reports o Bureau o Lands
inestigators, and a legislatie act or a statute. 1he applicant may also secure a certiication rom the
goernment that the land claimed to hae been possessed or the required number o years is alienable
and disposable.

In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executie order, administratie action, report, statute,
or certiication was presented to the Court. 1he records are beret o eidence showing that, prior to
2006, the portions o Boracay occupied by priate claimants were subject o a goernment proclamation
that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontroertible eidence, the Court
cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by priate claimants were already open to disposition
beore 2006. Matters o land classiication or reclassiication cannot be assumed. 1hey call or proo.

Ankron and De Aldecoa did not make the whole of Boracay Island, or portions of it, agricultural
lands

Priate claimants posit that Boracay was already an agricultural land pursuant to the old cases
.v/rov r. Corervvevt of tbe Pbitiive .tava. ;11) and De .taecoa r. 1be v.vtar Corervvevt ;10). 1hese
cases were decided under the proisions o the Philippine Bill o 1902 and Act No. 926. 1here is a
statement in these old cases that in the absence o eidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands
are agricultural lands until the contrary is shown.`

Priate claimants` reliance on .v/rov and De .taecoa is misplaced. 1hese cases did not hae the
eect o conerting the whole o Boracay Island or portions o it into agricultural lands. It should be
stressed that the Philippine Bill o 1902 and Act No. 926 merely proided the manner through which
land registration courts would classiy lands o the public domain. \hether the land would be classiied
as timber, mineral, or agricultural depended on proo presented in each case.

.v/rov and De .taecoa were decided at a time when the President o the Philippines had no
power to classiy lands o the public domain into mineral, timber, and agricultural. At that time, the
courts were ree to make corresponding classiications in justiciable cases, or were ested with implicit
power to do so, depending upon the preponderance o the eidence.

1o aid the courts in resoling land registration cases under Act No. 926, it was then necessary to
deise a presumption on land classiication. 1hus eoled the dictum in .v/rov that the courts hae a
right to presume, in the absence o eidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands are agricultural
lands until the contrary is shown.`

But the Court cannot unduly expand the presumption in .v/rov and De .taecoa to an argument
that all lands o the public domain had been automatically reclassiied as disposable and alienable
agricultural lands. By no stretch o imagination did the presumption conert all lands o the public
domain into agricultural lands.

I the Court accepts the position o priate claimants, the Philippine Bill o 1902 and Act No.
926 would hae automatically made all lands in the Philippines, except those already classiied as timber
or mineral land, alienable and disposable lands. 1hat would take these lands out o State ownership and
worse, would be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long-entrenched Regalian doctrine.

1he presumption in .v/rov and De .taecoa attaches only to land registration cases brought under
the proisions o Act No. 926, or more speciically those cases dealing with judicial and administratie
conirmation o imperect titles. 1he presumption applies to an applicant or judicial or administratie
conormation o imperect title under Act No. 926. It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as
priate claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who ailed to aail themseles o the beneits o Act
No. 926. As to them, their land remained unclassiied and, by irtue o the Regalian doctrine, continued
to be owned by the State.

lere, priate claimants, unlike the leirs o Ciriaco 1irol who were issued their title in 1933, did
not present a justiciable case or determination by the land registration court o the property`s land
classiication. Simply put, there was no opportunity or the courts then to resole i the land the Boracay
occupants are now claiming were agricultural lands. \hen Act No. 926 was supplanted by Act No. 284
in 1919, without an application or judicial conirmation haing been iled by priate claimants or their
predecessors-in-interest, the courts were no longer authorized to determine the property`s land
classiication. lence, priate claimants cannot bank on Act No. 926.

Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA
No. J4J. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law

1here are two requisites or judicial conirmation o imperect or incomplete title under CA No.
141, namely: ,1, open, continuous, exclusie, and notorious possession and occupation o the subject
land by himsel or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bova fiae claim o ownership since time
immemorial or rom June 12, 1945, and ,2, the classiication o the land as alienable and disposable land
o the public domain.

As discussed, the Philippine Bill o 1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801 did not
conert portions o Boracay Island into an agricultural land. 1he island remained an unclassiied land o
the public domain and, applying the Regalian doctrine, is considered State property.

Priate claimants` bid or judicial conirmation o imperect title, relying on the Philippine Bill o
1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801, must ail because o the absence o the second element
o alienable and disposable land. 1heir entitlement to a goernment grant under our present Public
Land Act presupposes that the land possessed and applied or is already alienable and disposable. 1his is
clear rom the wording o the law itsel. \here the land is not alienable and disposable, possession o the
land, no matter how long, cannot coner ownership or possessory rights.

In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the goernment has taken the step necessary to open up the
island to priate ownership. 1his gesture may not be suicient to appease some sectors which iew the
classiication o the island partially into a orest resere as absurd. 1hat the island is no longer oerrun
by trees, howeer, does not becloud the ision to protect its remaining orest coer and to strike a
healthy balance between progress and ecology. Lcological conseration is as important as economic
progress.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi