Filing of Case Against Mangrove Conversion

and Illegal Acquisition of Land from the Public Domain

(Edmundo Enderez, August 2009)

1. The Land Classification Map 664 (Dec 5, 1969) at center shows a timberland portion with an area
of 80,000 sq.m. or 8 hectares; the shape of the timberland is superimposed in the Google satellite map
(left) and the Topographic map (right); the timberland portion is validated as a mangrove area in the
topographic map. It must be noted however that north of the timberland is presented as mangrove area
but this is classified as part of a large area classified as Alienable and Disposable.

2. Presented below are three (3) Topographic maps of different scales to show the location and the
coordinates (based on GPS readings) of the corners of the perimeter dike being constructed.

3. The coordinates of the seven (7) corners of the dikes that were constructed by a certain claimant
and the coordinates of 2 corners of a separate dike that was constructed by another claimant are plotted in
the enlarged topographic map (left side) . It clearly shows that said construction is really within the
timberland per LC Map and within the mangrove area per the topographic map.

4. It has been said that the claimants believed that individuals whose privately owned land abutting
or adjacent to the mangrove area can automatically claim the mangrove area up to the shoreline.

5. The LC Map 664 dated Dec 5, 1969 used as reference in this report is acquired from the
NAMRIA office (Fort Bonifacio) through purchase. The copy of said map is a blue print of the original
map prepared by the Bureau of Forestry (now Bureau of Forest Development). If the copy of said map is
contested, then there is a need to purchase another copy of the map to be authenticated or certified by the
NAMRIA office.
6. Filing of Case Against Mangrove Conversion – The Polillo-LGU has filed a case against the
claimant on portion of the timberland (mangrove area) for mangrove conversion. As of August 2009, the
Municipal Trial Court of Polillo is attending to the case. For the speedy resolution of the case, it is
necessary to know and understand existing laws and policies related to the matter and apply them in this
particular case. These are as follows:

a. A.V. Revilla, Jr. (former Professor of Forest Resource Management, Associated Dean and
Director of Forestry Development Center, UPLB College of Forestry, College, Laguna) stated in his
paper titled “Forest Land Management in the Context of National Land-Use” prepared in 1984 that:

1) The whole land classification process has been done by field work with preliminary
assessment on aerial photographs, topographic maps, and vegetative maps whenever these are
available. The field work entails: evaluation of slope, vegetation and other features of the land;
actual survey; and establishment of boundaries.

2) The land classification work has been a very slow process. This has resulted in the pre-
emption of land-use in favor of A and D or non-forest classification. In many cases, when the
land classification team gets to an area, an upland farm has already taken the place of the forest.
 3) The classification of the country’s land resources into forest and A & D has been based
primarily on slope and to some extent on vegetation. Up to 1975, the responsibility of classifying
lands of the public domain had rested solely on the Bureau of Forest Development. Since then,
technical men from the Bureau of Lands, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (in the case
of mangroves and other potential fishery areas), and the Bureau of Mines and Geodetic Sciencies
(where applicable) have been added to form the land classification composite teams.” In this
case, there is a need to communicate with BFAR (National and Regional offices) pertaining to the
composite team and if BFAR and DENR (Bureau of Forest Development) has official
communication or transaction with the claimants who persisted in doing the illegal activities but
later stopped when the LGU-Polillo filed a case against them.

4) The 1972 Constitution states that lands of the public domain are now classified into seven
categories namely: agricultural, industrial/commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral,
timber/forest, and grazing lands.

b The banning of the conversion of mangroves to fishponds was initiated by DA-DENR in 1990.
This is enforced through the non-issuance/stoppage of Fisheries Lease Agreements (FLA), increases in
the rental price of FLA through DA-FAO 125-1 and the mangrove reforestation stewardship contract to be
awarded to coastal communities who shall be responsible for implementing and managing their own
mangrove resource

c. P.D. 705 (1975) - Revised Forestry Code: Mangrove strips in islands, which provide protection
from high winds, typhoons shall not be alienated

d. Presidential Proclamation. 2146 (1982): prohibition on mangrove cutting

e. Laws and Policies pertaining to mangrove management

1) DENR A.O. 15: Policies on communal forests, plantations, tenure through Mangrove
Stewardship Contracts; revert abandoned ponds to forest; ban cutting of trees in FLA areas;
prohibit further conversion of thickly vegetated areas

2) A.O. 9 1991: DENR Policies and guidelines for Mangrove Stewardship Agreement

3) R.A. 7160 (1991): Local Government Code: devolved management/implementation

of community forestry projects, communal forests less than 500 ha, enforcement of
community-based laws

4) DENR A.O. 30: Community-Based Mangrove Forest Management, NGO assistance

f. Supreme Court Rulings on cases involving mangrove area and A & D as reference in handling
this particular case.

1) Director of Forestry v. Villareal (GR L-32266, 27 February 1989)

 (a) Facts: Ruperto Villareal applied for its registration on 25 January 1949, a land
consisting of 178,113 sq. m. of mangrove swamps located in the municipality of Sapian,
Capiz, alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land
for more than 40 years. He was opposed by several persons, including the Director of
Foresty on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. After trial, the application was
approved by the CFI Capiz. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The
Director of Forestry then came to the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari
claiming that the land in dispute was forestal in nature and not subject to private
appropriation.

(b) SC Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
and dismissed the application for registration of title of Villareal, with cost against him;
the decision being immediately executory.

2) Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., Respondent (G.R. No.
154953, June 26, 2008)

(a) The Case: Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the 21 August 2002
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66658. The Court of Appeals
affirmed in toto the 16 December 1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan,
Batangas, Branch 6 (trial court) in Land Registration Case No. T-635.

(b) The Issues: The issues may be summarized as follows:

(1) Whether the land is alienable and disposable;

(2) Whether respondent or its predecessors-in-interest had open, continuous,

exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land in the concept of
an owner since June 1945 or earlier; and

(3) Whether respondent is qualified to apply for registration of the land

under the Public Land Act.

c) SC Ruling: Respondent Failed to Prove that the Land is Alienable and

Disposable

(1) Petitioner argues that anyone who applies for registration has the burden
of overcoming the presumption that the land forms part of the public domain.
Petitioner insists that respondent failed to prove that the land is no longer part of
the public domain.

(2) The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of
private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to overturn, by
incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application
for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.