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.
Some Properties in Boracay Are Titled Properties in The Names of Lamberto Hontiveros Tirol, Sofia Ner Gonzales, Ciriaco Tirol, and Their Heirs, Among Others.