Only alienable lands of the public domain may be the subject of disposition transfer ownership of these lands to private

ds to private corporations. PEA may only sell these

lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987
1) Chavez v. Pea and Amari Constitution and existing laws.

In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to reclaim 2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
areas of Manila Bay with the Construction and Development Corportion of the resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open
Philippines (CDCP). to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can
make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President Marcos under P.D. 1084,
submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to
domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their
the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road and Reclamation
present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the
Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that all future projects
commerce of man.
under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA. By 1988, President Aquino
issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was followed by the 3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,
transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of Deeds of Paranaque ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for
to PEA covering the three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM ISLANDS. being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Thai-Philippine corporation to develop the Freedom Islands. Along with another 250
hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would later transfer said lands to 4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
AMARI. This caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement, hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
claiming that such lands were part of public domain (famously known as the mother contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
of all scams). alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.

Peitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer praying for mandamus, a writ of PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the
preliminary injunction and a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer
AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these events, under President needed for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the
Estradas admin, PEA and AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the
claim that the contract is null and void. 1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.
Issue: w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed as part of the
stipulations in the (Amended) JVA between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII 2) BUREAU OF FORESTRY vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENO
of the 1987 Constitution GALLO

w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the issue of whether the amended joint In 1961, Mercedes Diago applied for the registration of 4 parcels of land situated in
venture agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the government. Buenavista, Iloilo containing an approximate area of 30.5 hectares. She alleged she
occupied said parcels of land having bought them from the estate of the late Jose Ma.
Held: Nava who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands in turn from Canuto Gustilo in 1934.

On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the constitution: The Director of Lands opposed the application on the ground that neither the
applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest have sufficient title over the lands applied
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
for, which could be registered under the Torrens systems, and that they have never
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or
been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lands for at least 30 determines the classification of lands of the public domain but the Executive Branch,
years. through the Office of the President.

The Director of Forestry also opposed on the ground that certain portions of the Furthermore, respondents cannot claim to have obtained their title by prescription
lands, with an area of approximately 19.4 hectares are mangrove swamps and are since the application filed by them necessarily implied an admission that the portions
within a Timberland Block. applied for are part of the public domain and cannot be acquired by prescription,
unless the law expressly permits it. It is a rule of law that possession of forest lands,
In 1965, Filomeno Gallo purchased the subject parcels of land from Mercedes Diago, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
and moved to be substituted in place of the latter, attaching to his motion an
Amended Application for Registration of Title. 3) DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, IBARRA
BISNAR and AMELIA BISNAR, respondents. G.R. No. 83609; October 26,
Philippine Fisheries Commission also moved to substitute petitioner Bureau of 1989
Forestry as oppositor, since supervision and control of said portion have been
transferred from the Bureau of Forestry to the PFC. Facts: On July 20,1976, Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed their joint application
for the registration of two parcels of land, located in the province of Capiz, in the
In April 1966, the trial court rendered its decision ordering the registration of the 4 CFI of Capiz. They claimed that they inherited those parcels of land. The Director of
parcels of land in the name of Filomeno Gallo. It ruled that although the controverted Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on
portion of 19.4 hectares are mangrove and nipa swamps within a Timberland Block, the ground that said parcels of land were part of a timberland, a public
petitioners failed to submit convincing proof that these lands are more valuable for dominion, so it cannot be the subject of the registration proceedings. After the
forestry than for agricultural purposes, and the presumption is that these are hearing, the CFI ordered the registration of the title of the lots in the names of the
agricultural lands. applicants, herein private respondents after finding that the applicants and their
predecessors- in-interest have been in open, public, continuous, peaceful and
ISSUE:
adverse possession of the subject parcels of land under bona fide claims of
WON the classification of lands of public domain by the Executive Branch of the ownership for more than 80 years. The CA affirmed the CFIs decision, holding
Government into agricultural, forest or mineral can be changed or varied by the that the classification of the lots as timberland by the Director of Forestry cannot
court. NO 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
HELD: of the Philippine Islands (40 Phil. 10).

Admittedly, the controversial area is within a timberland block classified and Issue/s: Whether or not the possession of forestlands or timberlands for 80 years
certified as such by the Director of Forestry in 1956. The lands are needed for forest can ripen to private ownership.
purposes and hence they are portions of the public domain which cannot be the
subject of registration proceedings. Ruling: No. The Court ruled that possession of forestlands, however long, cannot
ripen into private ownership. It emphasized that a positive act of the government,
Clearly therefore the land is public land and there is no need for the Director of particularly the Executive Department is needed to declassify land, which is
Forestry to submit convincing proofs that the land is more valuable for forest classified as forest, and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural
purposes than for agriculture. or other purposes before registration of which may proceed. The Court, citing
various cases, stated that a parcel of forestland is within the exclusive jurisdiction of
As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the classification or the Bureau of Forestry, an office under the Executive Department, and beyond the
reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens System.
now a prerogative of the Executive Department and not of the courts. With these In the present case, the two parcels of land were not declared by the Executive
rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which
Department to be alienable and disposable, thus it cannot be registered under private The first document was a promise that the Deed of Sale shall be delivered to
ownership. petitioner on February 25, 1983 and the second document was a certification that
Freddie Dela Paz has agreed to sign the affidavit of sale of lot sold to petitioner.

However, private respondents Dela Paz never delivered the Deed of Sale as
4) Montano v. Insular Government- No digest they promised to petitioner.

Property of Public Domain In the meantime, in a Deed of Absolute Sale with right to repurchase,
private respondents Dela Paz sold three lots with right to repurchase the same within
1) Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez vs CA
one year to private respondents spouses Veneracion. One of the lots sold was the lot
FACTS: previously sold to petitioner.

Sometime in February 1981, private respondents Godofredo Dela Paz and Spouses Veneracion never took actual possession of any of these lots during
his sister Manuela Dela Paz entered into an oral contract with petitioner Fr. Dante the period of redemption, but all the titles to the lots were given to him.
Martinez, then Assistant Parish Priest of Cabanatuan City for the sale of a certain lot
Before the expiration of the one year period, private respondet Godofredo
located at Villa Fe Subdivision.
Dela Paz informed private respondent Reynaldo Veneracion that he was selling the
At the time of the sale, the lot was still registered under the name of Claudia three lots to another person.
Dela Paz, private respondents mother although the latter had already sold it to
Indeed, Veneracion received a call from Mr. Tecson verifying if he had the
private respondent Manuela Dela Paz by virtue if a Deed of Absolute Sale.
titles ti the properties as the Dela Pazes were offering to sell the two lots. The offer
Private respondent subsequently registered the lot under her name and was included the lot purchased by petitioner.
issued a Transfer Certificate Title.
Private respondent Veneracion offered to purchase the same two lots from
When the land was offered for sale to petitioner, private respondents Dela Dela Paz and so a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed over these lots.
Paz were accompanied by their mother since petitioner dealt with the Dela Pazes as a
Sometime in January 1984, Reynaldo Veneracion asked a certain Renato
family and not individually.
Reyes, petitioners neighbor, who the owner of the building erected on the subject lot
He was assured by them that the lot belonged to Manuela. was.

It was agreed that petitioner will pay 3000 downpayment and the balance Reyes told him that it was Feliza Martines, petitioners mother, who was in
would be payable in installments. possession of the property.

Petitioner started the construction of a house on the lot with the written Veneracion told Godofredo about the matter and was assured by the latter
consent if the then registered owner, Claudia. that he would talk to Feliza.

Construction on the house was completed and since them, petitioner and his Based on that assurance, private respondents Veneracion registered the lots
family have maintained their residence there. with the Register of Deeds.

On January 1983, petitioner completed payment of the lot for which private Petitioner discovered that the lot he was occupying with his family had been
respondents Dela Paz executed two documents. sold to the spouses Veneracion after receiving a letter from private respondent
Reynaldo Veneracion, claiming ownership of the land and demanding that they
vacate the property and remove their improvements thereon.
Petitioner, in turn, demanded through counsel the execution of the deed of Whether or not private respondents Veneracion are buyers in good faith of
sale from private respondents Dela Paz and informed Reynaldo Veneracion that he the lot in dispute as to make them the absolute owners thereof.
was the owner of the property as he had previously purchased the same from private
respondents Dela Paz. HELD

The matter was then referred to the Katarungang Pambarangay for The CA based its ruling that private respondents are the owner of the
conciliation but the parties failed to reach an agreement. disputed lot on their reliance on private respondent Godofredo Dela Pazs assurance
that he would take care of the matter concerning petitioners occupancy of the
As a consequence, private respondent Reynaldo Veneracion brought an disputed lot as constituting good faith.
action for ejectment in the MTC against petitioner and his mother.
This case, however, involves double sale and, on this matter, Article 1544
On the other hand, petitioner caused a notice of lis pendens to be recorded of the CC which provides two requirements acquisition in good faith and recording
in the TCT. in good faith. The presence of good faith shall be ascertained from the circusmtances
surrounding the purchase of the land and the SC ruled in three ways.
The TC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner.
First, with regard to the first sale to private respondents Veneracion,
The TCs decision where objected by the private respondents Veneracion Reynaldo Veneracion testified that before the execution of the sale with right to
and these cases were forwarded to the RTC. repurchase, he inspected the lot and it was vacant. However, this is belied by the
testimony of Engr. Minor who was the building inspector and when he conducted an
RTC rendered a decision finding private respondents Veneracion as the true
ocular inspection of the lot in dispute, he found that the building was 100%
owner of the lot in dispute by virtue of their prior registration with the Register of
completed. Thus, private respondents already knew that there was a construction
Deeds.
being made on the property they purchased.
Meanwhile, while the ejectment case was pending before the MTC,
Second, the parties entered into an equitable mortgage and not contract of
petitioner Martinez filed a complaint for annulment of sale with damages against the
sale. The requisites were all present:
Veneracions and Dela Pazez with the RTC.
a. Private respondents Veneracion never took actual possession of the three
RTC rendered a decision finding private respondents Veneracion owners of
lots;
the land in dispute.
b. Private respondents Dela Paz remained possession of the third lot which
Petitioner then filed a petition for review for the ejectment case before the
was co-owned by them and where they resided;
CA.
c. During the first sale and second sale, Veneracion never made any effort to
As to the case for annulment of sale and damages, the petitioner likewise
take possession of the properties; and
appealed the TCs decision before the CA.
d. When the period of redemption expired and when they were informed that
CA rendered a decision in favor of respondents.
the Dela Pazes are offering the lots for sale, they never objected and instead, offered
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this to purchase the two lots.
case.
Third, the appellate courts reliance on Articles 1357 and 1358 of the Civil
Code to determine private respondents Veneractions lack of knowledge of
petitioners ownership of the disputed lot is erroneous.
ISSUE
a. Art. 1357 and Art. 1358, in relation to Art. 1403(2) of the Civil Code, of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai when the
requires that the sale of real property must be in writing for it to be enforceable. Roppongi building needed major repairs. President Aquino created a committee to
study the disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and
b. It need not be notarized. Kobe, Japan. The President issued EO 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities
to avail of separations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or
c. If the sale has not been put in writing, either of the contracting parties can
disposition.
compel the other to observe such requirement.
Issues: Whether or not the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the
d. This is what petitioner did when he repeatedly demanded that a Deed of
authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property.
Absolute Sale be executed in his favor by private respondents De la Paz.
Ruling: It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government
e. There is nothing in the above provisions which require that a contract of
on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved
sale of realty must be executed in a public document.
by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.
f. In any event, it has been shown that private respondents Veneracion had It is indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the
knowledge of facts which would put them on inquiry as to the nature of petitioners inflated prices fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic
occupancy of the disputed lot. value to all Filipinos, veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and
related properties will eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the
Finally, the SC reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and: President and Congress must concur. Considering the properties' importance and
value, the laws on conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must
a. Declared the deed of sale executed by private respondents Godofredo and be faithfully followed.
Veneracion null and void;
3) Republic v. Alagad-No Digest
b. Ordered private respondents Godofredo and Manuela to execute a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of petitioner Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez; 4) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT
OF APPEALS AND ISABEL LASTIMADO, RESPONDENTS.
c. Ordered private respondents Dela Pazes to reimburse spouses Veneracion
the amount the latter may have paid; Facts: Private respondent, Isabel Lastimado, filed on September 11, 1967, in the
Court of First Instance of Bataan, Branch I, a Petition for the reopening of cadastral
d. Ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the TCT in favor of the Veneracion proceedings over a portion of Lot No. 626 of the Mariveles Cadastre, consisting of
spouses and issue a new one in the name of petitioner and 971.0569 hectares, pursuant to Republic Act No. 931, as amended by Republic Act
No. 2061. In the absence of any opposition, whether from the Government or from
e. Ordered private respondents to pay petitioner jointly and severally the sum
private individuals, private respondent was allowed to present her evidence ex-
as attorneys fees and to pay the cosrs of the suit.
parte. On October 14, 1967, the trial Court rendered a Decision granting the Petition
2) Salvador H. Laurel, petitioner, vs. Ramon Garcia, as head of the Asset and adjudicating the land in favor of private respondent. The trial Court issued an
Privatization Trust, Raul Manglapus, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and Order for the issuance of a decree of registration on November 20, 1967, and on
Catalino Macaraig, as Executive Secretary, respondents. November 21, 1967, the Land Registration Commission issued Decree No. N-
117573 in favor of private respondent. Eventually, Original Certificate of Title
Facts: The subject property in this case is one of the 4 properties in Japan acquired No.N-144 was also issued in her favor. Private respondent thereafter subdivided the
by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with land into ten lots, and the corresponding titles. Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
Japan, the Roppongi property. The said property was acquired from the Japanese 18905 to 18914 inclusive, were issued by the Register of Deeds.
government through Reparations Contract No. 300. It consists of the land and
building for the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. As intended, it became the site
On June 3, 1968, or within one year from the entry of the decree of registration, Although there was an agreement by the parties to submit for resolution the
petitioner filed a Petition for Review pursuant to Sec. 38, Act No. 496, on the Opposition to the Petition for Review, which was treated as a motion to dismiss, the
ground of fraud alleging that during the period of alleged adverse possession by trial Court, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, should not have dismissed
private respondent, said parcel of land was part of the U.S. Military Reservation in the Petition outright but should have afforded petitioner an opportunity to present
Bataan, which was formally turned over to the Republic of the Philippines only on evidence in support of the facts alleged to constitute actual and extrinsic fraud
December 22, 1965, and that the same is inside the public forest of Mariveles, committed by private respondent. Thus, in the case of
Bataan and, therefore, not subject to disposition or acquisition under the Public Land
Law. Respondent filed an Opposition thereto, which was considered by the trial Republic vs. Sioson, et al., it was held that " the action of the lower Court in denying
Court, as a Motion to Dismiss, and on December 20, 1968, said Court (Judge Tito the petition for review of a decree of registration filed within one year from entry of
V. Tizon, presiding) issued an Order dismissing the Petition for Review mainly on the decree, without hearing the evidence in support of the allegation and claim that
the ground that the Solicitor General had failed to file opposition to the original actual and extrinsic fraud upon which the petition is predicated, is held to be in
Petition for reopening of the cadastral proceedings and was, therefore, estopped error, because the lower Court should have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to
from questioning the decree of registration ordered issued therein. On January 28, prove it." If the allegation of petitioner that the land in question was inside the
1969, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial Court in military reservation at the time it was claimed is true, then, it cannot be the object
its Order dated May 20, 1969, for lack of merit. of any cadastral proceeding nor can it be the object of reopening under Republic
Act No. 931.
Ruling:
Similarly, if the land in question, indeed, forms part of the public forest, then,
The essential elements for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree are: possession thereof, however long, cannot convert it into private property as it is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power
a) that the petitioner has a real and dominical right; and jurisdiction of the cadastral Court to register under the Torrens System. Even
assuming that the government agencies can be faulted for inaction and neglect
b) that he has been deprived thereof;
(although the Solicitor General claims that it received no notice), yet, the same
c) through fraud; cannot operate to bar action by the State as it cannot be estopped by the mistake or
error of its officials or agents. Further, we cannot lose sight of the cardinal
d) that the petition is filed within one year from the issuance of the decree; and consideration that "the State as a persona in law is the juridical entity, which is the
source of any asserted right to ownership in land" under basic Constitutional
e) that the property has not as yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser. precepts, and that it is moreover charged with the conservation of such patrimony.

However, for fraud to justify the review of a decree, it must be extrinsic or collateral
and the facts upon which it is based have not been controverted or resolved in the
case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The following ruling
spells out the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud:

"Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud, connotes any

fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant outside the trial of a case
against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said
defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case. But
intrinsic fraud takes the form of acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such
as the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the
presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case."