II Classification of Public Lands b.

PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY – land belonging to the State that is not of

public dominion’s character; or although of such character but no longer
1. Classification of public lands is an EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE intended for public use or for public services.
c. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP – Land that is other than part of patrimonial
1935 Consti 1973 Consti 1987 Consti property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities is of private
Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural ownership if it belongs to a private individual.
Timber Industrial / Commercial Timber
Mineral Residential Mineral (3) Classification of public lands according to alienability
Resettlement National Parks  Alienability primarily rests on the classification of public lands made under the
Mineral Constitution.
Timber / Forest & Grazing  **see table sa first part**
Lands  Under Sec 2, Art 7 of the 1987 Consti, only AGRICULTURAL LANDS of the public
Other classes as may be domain may be alienated.
provided
(4) Categories of alienable and disposable lands
 CA 141 (PLA) remains the existing gen law governing the classification & dispo a. PATRIMONIAL LANDS
of lands b. PUBLIC DOMAIN
 Regalian Doctrine: land that has not been acquired from the government (by  Lands classified as forest / timber, mineral, or national parks are not
purchase grant or any other mode recognized by law) belongs to the State as susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as
part of public domain. agricultural. Reclassification is enabled through the POSITIVE ACT of the gov’t
 Classification of public land is an EXCLUSIVE PREROG of the EXECUTIVE and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws is
DEPARTMENT of the gov’t & not of the courts. In the absence of such vested in the Executive Department, NOT IN COURTS.
classification, the land remains unclassified land until it is released therefrom  Removal of land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such
and rendered open to disposition. conversion must be made:
a. Law enacted by Congress
(1) System of Classification b. Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized
 The President, is authorized from time to time, to classify the lands of the public by law to that effect.
domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral lands (Sec 6 of PLA)  Hence, Regalian doctrine applies until the Executive Dept. / Congress acts on
through a presidential proclamation / executive order. this.
 ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS—further classified into: a. agricultural;
b. residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes; c. (5) Requirements to establish classification
educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; d. reservation for town sites, Republic v Fabio
and for public and quasi public use.
 The Secretary of DENR is the ONLY other public official empowered by law to It is not enough for the Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Office (PENRO) or
approve a land classification and declare such land as alienable and disposable. Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) to certify that land is
Example: Proc No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into… alienable and disposable (A and D).
a. 400 hectares for RESERVED FOREST LANDS (protection purposes)
b. 628.96 hectares of AGRICULTURAL LAND (alienable and disposable The applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification
*In issuing this, the President merely exercised the authority granted her to and released the land of public domain as A and D land, falls within the land classification
classify lands of the public domain. map as verified through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant, the
applicant must present a certified copy of the DENR Secretary’s declaration or the
(2) Classification of land according to ownership President’s proclamation classifying the land as alienable and disposable.
 Jura Regalia: All lands of public domain belong to the state. Those which are
appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the Under DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20 dated May 30, 1988, CENROs may issue
State. certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares, and for those falling
 Land can be classified into: above 50 hectares, the issuance of such certificates is within the function of the PENROs.
a. PUBLIC DOMINION – Gaerlan v Republic
i. land is intended for public use
ii. belongs to the State, w/o being for public use and is intended for A CENRO or PENRO certification cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts
some public service or for the development of the national wealth stated therein.
(6) Only A and D lands may be the subject of disposition (7) Classification of Boracay Island

ONLY alienable lands of PUBLIC DOMAIN may be the subject of disposition. Pertinent Secretary of the Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources v Yap
provisions of the PLA read:
Illustrates the classification by Presidential fiat of Boracay Island in the Municipality of
SEC 2. The provisions of this Act shall apply to the lands of the public domain; but timber Malay, Aklan.
and mineral lands shall be governed by special laws and nothing in this Act provided shall November 10, 1978 – Pres. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island,
be understood or construed to change or modify the administration and disposition of the among other islands, caves and peninsulas in the Philippines, as tourist zones and marine
lands commonly called “friar lands” and those which, being privately owned, have reverted reserves under the administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority.
to or become the property of the Republic of the Philippines, which administration and
disposition shall be governed by the laws at the present in force or which may hereafter be Repondents Mayor Jose S. Yap, Jr. et al. filed a petition with the regional trial court in
enacted Kalibo, Aklan for the registration of their claims.

SEC 6. The President, upon the upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Environment The republic opposed the petition, maintaining that Boracay Island is an unclassified land
and Natural Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into: of the public domain and cannot be subject of alienation. RTC: in favor of respondents. The
(a) Alienable or Disposable, case reached the SC.
(b) Timber, and
© Mineral lands May 22, 2006 (during the pendency of the case): President Arroyo issued Proc. No. 1064
..and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, classifying Boracay Island into 400 hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes)
for the purposes of their administration and disposition. and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land (A & D).

SEC 9. For the purpose of the administration and disposition, the lands of the public domain August 10, 2006 – petitioners filed with the Court an original petition for the nullification
alienable or open to disposition shall be classified, according to the use or purposes to of Proclamation No. 1064. They contended that there is no need for a proclamation
which such lands are destined, as follows: reclassifying Boracay into agricultural land. Being classified as neither mineral nor timber
(a) Agricultural; land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No.
(b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes; 926, known as the first Public Land Act.
(c) Education, charitable, or other similar purposes; and
(d) Reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-public uses. RULING: SC dismissed the petition. There is no showing that prior to 2006, the portions of
The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Boracay occupied by private claimants were the subject of a government proclamation that
Resources, shall from time to time make the classifications provided for in this section, and the land is alienable and disposable. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot
may, at any time and in a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another . be assumed. The Court further declared that except for lands already covered by existing
titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No.
SEC 10. The words “alienation,” “disposition,” or “concession,” as used in this Act, shall 1064. Under PD No. 705 or Revised Forestry Code, all unclassified lands are considered
mean any of the methods authorized by this Act for the acquisition, lease, use, or benefit of public forest. In the absence of the classification as mineral or timber land, the land
the lands of the public domain other than timber or mineral lands. remains unclassified land until released and rendered open to disposition.

 Before the gov’t could alienate or dispose of lands of the public domain, the (8) “Public lands” and “gov’t land” distinguished
President must first officially classify these lands as A & D, THEN declare them Montano v Insular Gov’t – difference between public lands/public domain and
open to disposition or concession. There must be no law reserving these lands government lands.
for public or quasi-public uses.
 Sec 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands Gov’t Land – includes not only public lands/public domain, but also other lands of the
which have been “officially delimited and classified.” gov’t already reserved or devoted to public use or subject to private right. In other
words, the gov’t owns real estate which is part of the “public lands” and other real estate
Director of Lands v CA and Bisnar which is not a part thereof.

A positive act of the government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and (9) Cadastral survey of a municipality does not automatically classify lands within the
to convert it into alienable / disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. Unless and cadaster as A and D lands—this does not follow that all lands comprised therein are
until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that automatically released as A & D; merely identifies each lot preparatory to a judicial
it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on proceeding for adjudication of title to any of the lands upon claim of interested parties.
confirmation of imperfect title DO NOT APPLY.
 If land is within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Dev’t (BFD), it would be land was agricultural & that the applicant had proven that he was in open and exclusive
beyond the jurisdiction of the cadastral court. possession of the object land for the prescribed number of years.
 If the subj property is still unclassified, it CANNOT ripen into private
ownership. Indeed, until timber or forest lands are released as disposable and It was the Land Registration Court which had jurisdiction to determine whether the land
alienable, the gov’t through the appropriate agencies, has no authority to lease, applied for was agricultural, forest, or timber taking into account the proof or evidence in
grant, sell, or otherwise dispose of these lands for homesteads, sales patents, each particular case.
leases for grazing or other purposes, fishpond leases, and other modes of Ramos v Director of Lands
utilization.
 Adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of The presumption should be, in lieu of the contrary proof, that land is agricultural in nature.
imperfect title cases applies only to alienable lands of public domain. One very apparent reason is that it is for the good of the Philippine Islands to have the large
public domain come under private ownership.
2. Under the Spanish regime, all Crownlands were per se alienable and subject to Ankron v Gov’t of the Philippines
adjudication by the courts.
Republic v CA and Carag The mere fact that a tract of land had trees upon it or has mineral within it is not itself
sufficient to declare that one is forestry land and the other, mineral land. There must be
The court sustained the validity of the decree or registration an title issued in 1930 to the some proof of the extent and present or future value of the forestry and of the minerals.
spouses Antonio Carag and Victoria Turingan. Petitioner Republic had argued that **It should be noted, however, that at the time the Ramos and the Ankron case were
(1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed portion as private decided, they were under the Philippine Bill of 1902 (PLA No. 926 was enacted on October
property since the same was still classifies as timber land when Decree No 381928 7, 1926) under which there was no legal provision vesting in the Chief Executive or
was issued in 1930. President to classify lands. To aid the courts in resolving land registration cases under Act
(2) ..in 1930 or in 1938, only the executive branch of the gov’t, not the trial courts, No. 926, the presumption on land classification was necessary
had the power to declassify or reclassify lands of the public domain.
3. Burden of proof rests with applicant to overcome presumption of State
Ruling: Petitioner’s arguments were rejected. Lands which are already private lands, as ownership
well as lands on which a private claim may be made under any law, are NOT COVERED by  No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express
the classification requirement in Sec 8, Act No. 2874. Section 8 recognizes that during the or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the person
Spanish regime, Crown lands were per se, alienable unless falling under timber of mineral claiming title to a public land should show that their title was acquired from the
zones, or otherwise reserves for some public purpose in accordance with law. State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
 Applicant must show that the land subject of the application is alienable or
Trial court has jurisdiction to adjudicate these lands to private parties. In this case, disposable by establishing the existence of the positive act of the government.
petitioner has NOT alleged that the disputed portion had been declared as mineral or forest  Positive act such as: presidential proclamation / executive order,
zone, or reserved for some public purpose in accordance with law, during the Spanish administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Land investigators,
regime if thereafter. The finality of the trial court’s decision is further recognized in Section and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant may also secure a certification
1, Art XII of the 1935 Consti which even as it declared that all agricultural, timber, and from the gov’t that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required
mineral lands of the public domain belong to the State, recognized that these lands were number of years is A & D.
“subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession a the time of the inauguration of
the Gov’t established under this Constitution. II Non-Registrable Properties
Republic v CA and Gana
1. Property either of public dominion or private ownership.
The Republic sought to annul the judgment of the CFI Rizal because at the time the  The ff things are prop of public dominion:
application for registration was filed in 1927, the land still formed part of the unclassified (1) Those intended for public use: roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
forest land. They argued that the authority to classify lands was vested in the Director of bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of
Lands pursuant to Act Nos. 926 and 2874. similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, w/o being for public use, and are
Ruling: SC denied the gov’t petition. They are inclined to agree with the respondent that it intended for some public service of for the dev’t of the national wealth
is legally doubtful if the authority of the Gov-Gen to declare lands as alienable and  Private property consists of all property belonging to private persons, either
disposable would apply to lands that have become private property or lands that have been individually OR collectively, as well as “the patrimonial property of the State,
impressed with a private right authorized and recognized by Act 2874 or any valid law. provinces, cities, and municipalities. Accordingly, only publicly owned lands
which are patrimonial in character are susceptible to prescription under
When the land reg court issued a decision for the issuance of a decree which was the basis Section 14(2) of PD No. 1529.
of the original certificate to the land, the court had already made a determination that the
(1) Land intended for public use or service not available for private appropriation (3) Land may be alienated when declared no longer needed for public use or
 ..since they are part of public domain. If a person obtains title under Torrens service
system which includes lands that cannot be registered under the Torrens Laurel v Garcia
system, he does not, by virtue of said title become the owner thereof.
 All other property of the State which is not of the character above, is The Executive Dept. attempted to sell the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan which was
patrimonial property. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended acquired by the Philippine gov’t for use as the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy.
for public use . public service, shall form part of State’s patrimonial property. Although the Chancery had transferred to another location 13 years earlier, the Court ruled
a. Ownership of waters: PD No. 1067 established the “Water Code of the that, under Art 422 of the NCC, property of public dominion retains such character until
Philippines” which governs the ownership and regulation of water formally declared otherwise.
resources through National Water Resources Council, now NWRB. The
privilege to use water is exclusively regulated by the STATE. (4) A and D lands held by gov’t entities under Section 60, CA No. 141 cannot be
The ff belong to the State: The ff are found on private lands but still alienated without approval by Congress
1) rivers and their natural beds belong to the State:
2) continuous or intermittent 1) Continuous/intermittent waters Example:
waters of springs and brooks rising on such lands
running in their natural beds and 2) Lakes and lagoons naturally Chavez v Public Estates Authority
the bedsthemselves occurring on such lands
3) natural lakes and lagoons 3) Rain water falling on such lands The transfer of the Freedom Islands to the Public Estates Authority (PEA) was made subject
4) all other categories of surface 4) Subterranean or ground waters to the provisions of CA No. 141 as expressly stated in Special Patent No. 3517 issued to PEA
waters such as water flowing 5) Water is swamps and marshes by the President. Sec 60 of CA 141 prohibits, “except when authorized by Congress,” the sale
over lands, water from rainfall of alienable lands of the public domain that are transferred to gov’t units / entities. Section
whether natural or artificial, and 60 of CA 141 constitutes a “statutory lien affecting title” of the registered land even if not
water from agriculture runoff, annotated on the certificate of title.
seepage, and drainage
5) Atmospheric water In other words, alienable lands of the public domain held by gov’t entities under Sec 60
6) Subterranean / ground waters, REMAIN PUBLIC LANDS because they cannot be alienated or encumbered unless Congress
and passes a law authorizing their disposition. Congress, however, cannot authorize the sale to
7) Seawater private corporations or reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain because of
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their CONSTITUTIONAL BAN.
entire length and within a zone of: (5) Lands titled in the name of government entities form part of the public domain
a. 3 meters in urban areas  Revised Admin Code of 1987 recognized that LANDS OF PUBLIC
b. 20 meters in agricultural areas DOMAIN MAY BE REGISTERED UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM.
c. 40 meters in forest areas  Thus, private property purchased by the national gov’t for expansion
along their margin are subject to the easements of public use in the interest of recreation, of a public wharf may be titled in the name of a gov’t corporation
navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone regulating port operations in the country.
longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, or salvage or to build  Private lands taken by the gov’t for public use under its own power of
structures of any kind. eminent domain unquestionably
2. Forest Land
No person has a right or title over public easements precisely because it is a public land. Forest – large tract of land covered with natural growth of trees and underbrush; a large
wood.
b. Ports are properties of public dominion (A 420 of the NCC)  If the land forms part of the public forest, possession thereof, however
c. Road-right-of-way cannot be titled (or be the object of a contract) long, cannot convert it into private property as it is within the
d. Public plzzas are for public use (as they are outside the commerce of men) exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Development and
(2) Patrimonial property – Public domain lands become patrimonial property: beyond the power and jurisdiction of the registration court.
a. declaration that these are A & D  Where the controversial area is within a timberland block or
b. an express gov’t manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or classification of the municipality and certified to by the Director of
no longer retained for public service or the development of national Forestry as within an area needed for forest purposes, it cannot be the
wealth, under Art 422 of the NCC. subject of registration proceedings since it forms part of the
Patrimonial properties are within the commerce of men and are susceptible to inalienable portion of the public domain.
prescription, unless otherwise provided. (1) Conservation of natural resources
 There is a presumption that land is agricultural in nature Director of Forestry v Villareal
 When the claim of the citizen and the claim of the Gov’t as to a
particular piece of property collide, if the Gov’t desires to demonstrate Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests and, therefore, not subject to disposition
that the land is in reality forest, the Director of Forestry should submit until and unless they are first released as forest land and classified as alienable agricultural
to the court convincing proof that the land is not more valuable for land.
agricultural than for forest purposes. 5. Mineral lands – any area where mineral resources are found.
 There is the need to preserve and protect forests.  Mining claims and rights and other matters concerning minerals and mineral lands
 Principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and are governed by special laws.
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is  The ownership of mineral resources is provided in RA No. 7942, known as the
promoted: Philippine Mining Act of 1995.
a. Timber licenses (1) Mineral resources are owned by the State and are meant to benefit not merely a
b. Permits select group of people living in the areas but the entire Filipino nation.
c. License Agreements (2) Possession of mineral land does not confer possessory rights – no matter how
..these are NOT deemed contracts within the purview of the due long
process clause. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced, or Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co. v CA
rescinded by the Chief Executive.
(2) Classification of land is descriptive of its legal nature, not what it actually looks Perfection of a mining claim before the 1935 Consti (which prohibited the alienation of all
like. lands of the public domain except agricultural lands) had the EFFECT OF REMOVING THE
 A positive act of the government is needed to declassify a forest land LAND FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
Amunategui v Director of Forestry (3) Ownership of the land does not extend to minerals underneath
Republic v CA and dela Rosa
Justice Gutierrez debunked the argument that since the disputed land “is not thickly
forested” and, in any event, it has been in the actual possession of many persons for many The Regalian Doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that ay be found in the
years, it was already “private land” which is better adapted and more valuable for bowels of the Earth. So, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are
agricultural than for forest purposes. discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the
said minerals without the permission of the State to which such minerals belong.
ALSO, the fact that the contested parcels of land have long been denuded and actually
contains rich limestone deposits DOES NOT un any way affect it classification as forest land. (4) Land cannot be partly mineral and partly agricultural – rights over the land are
indivisible
(3) Section 48(b), CA No. 141 applies only to A & D lands. Forest lands = excluded. 6. National Parks – declared part of the public domain, and shall be conserved and
3. Watersheds may not be increased nor diminished, except by law.
Sta, Rosa Realty Development Corpo v CA 7. Military of Naval Reservation – CANNOT be the object of registration;
inalienable; sale of such is void ab initio.
Watershed – an area drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary or 8. Foreshore & reclaimed lands – inalienable unless otherwise declared by law
divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds. > Foreshore land – that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and
that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide or that part of the land
However, this definition does not exactly depict the complexties of watershed. Most adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered by the ordinary flow of the tides.
important product of a watershed = water. Protection of watersheds = intergenerational **see Republic v CA and Republic Real Estate Corporation pp 225 - 227**
responsibility that needs to be answered now. (1) Land invaded by the sea is a foreshore land & belongs to the State; registration
Tan v Director of Forestry of such is void and the land should be returned to the public domain.
(2) Submerged areas – permanently under water regardless of ebb and flow; form
The Court reiterated the basic policy of conserving the national patrimony, as exemplified part of the public domain, hence inalienable & outside the commerce of man,
by the gov’t withdrawal from entry, sale, or settlement of forest reserves for watershed, soil unless otherwise transformed into public agricultural land.
protection, and timber production purposes. (3) Public Estates Authority – created through PD No. 1084; primary implementing
4. Mangrove Swamps / Manglares – forestall and NOT alienable agricultural land. agency of the national gov’t to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of the
Yngson v Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources public domain. There must be a formal declaration of segregation of reclaimed
lands no longer intended for public service from those otherwise. Lands
The Bureau of Fisheries has NO JURISDICTION to dispose of swamplands or mangrove reclaimed by PEA are not automatically classified as A & D of the public domain.
lands forming part of the public domain while such lands are still classified as forest lands.
Republic v CA and Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) (3) Public Estates Authority – created through PD No. 1084; primary implementing
agency of the national gov’t to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of the
 On April 24, 1959, the City of Pasay and RREC entered into an Agreement for the public domain. There must be a formal declaration of segregation of reclaimed
RECLAMATION OF PORTION of the MANILA BAY pursuant to RA No. 1899 authorizing lands no longer intended for public service from those otherwise. Lands
chartered cities and municipalities to reclaim adjoining foreshore lands. reclaimed by PEA are not automatically classified as A & D of the public domain.
 The agreement gave RREC an irrevocable option to purchase a maximum of 60% of the
area reclaimed at Php 10.00 per square meter. 9. Lakes - form part of Laguna de Bay; NEITHER AGRICULTURAL NOR DISPOSABLE
 RREC entered into a contract to sell the reclaimed areas which it could purchase from LANDS; free patents and certificates of title issued to the applicants covering portions of
Pasay City by exercising its option under the agreement. the lake, due to misrepresentation and false reports, should be CANCELLED.
 On March 5, 1962, the Republic of the Philippines filed an amended complaint
questioning the agreement on grounds that it was entered into without any public (1) Laguna de Bay—the Laguna Lake Dev’t Authority Act of 1996 defines the Laguna
bidding, the subject-matter thereof was already reserved as a national park, and the Lake de Bay as that area covered by the lake water when it is at the average annual
reclamation covered “submerged areas” and NOT “foreshore lands.” maximum lake level of elevation 12.50 meters as referred to a datum 10 meters below
such elevation are public lands which form part of the bed of said lake.
 RTC: dismissed the Republic’s complaint; approved the implementation of the
agreement after submission of required documents. Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) – organized and vested with powers and
functions defined in Sec 4 of the law; to “reclaim or cause to be reclaimed portions of the
 CA: dismissed the Republic’s appeal; sustained RREC’s irrevocable option to purchase lake or undertake reclamation projects and/or acquire such bodies of land from the lake
60% of the 21 hectares land which may be necessary to accomplish the aims and purposes of the Authority.

Issue: WON there are foreshore lands along the seaside of Pasay City and that what Pasay (2) Area beyond the natural bed of the Laguna de Bay may be registered
City has are submerged of offshore areas which cannot be the subject of reclamation. > Extent of lake bed is defined in Art 74 of the Law of Waters of 1866 as follows: “The
natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds, or pools, is the ground covered by their waters
Ruling: Yes, there is a complete dearth of evidence to prove that RREC had reclaimed 55 when at their HIGHEST ORDINARY DEPTH (during dry season ‘to).”
hectares of foreshore lands. The Reclamation Agreement between Pasay City and RREC was
declared NULL AND VOID by the Court for being ultra vires. Republic v CA and del Rio

CCP’s proprietary rights over the titled lots (which included, among others, CCP, Folk The Director of Lands interposed an opposition to private respondent’s application for
Arts Theater, PICC, and other structures) was sustained. The Court stressed that the registration, contending that a portion of the land in question is covered with the waters of
subject matter of Pasay City Ordinance No. 121, as amended, and the Agreement under the Laguna de Bay four (4) to five (5) months a year and is, therefore, a part of the lake bed
question, have been found to be outside the intendment and scope of RA No 1899, and of Laguna de Bya, or is at least a foreshore land, which brings it within the enumeration of
therefore NULL AND VOID. lands of the public domain in Art 502 of the NCC.

In lambent words, Justice Puno submitted a concurring opinion citing the CCP Complex The SC, through Justice Cuevas, ruled that the land is not part of the lake bed since it is not
as the only area in the Philippines that is fully devoted to the growth and propagation of covered by the waters of the lake at their “highest ordinary depth” and, hence, it is
arts and culture; the venue in the country where artists, Filipino, and foreign alike, may registrable as private property.
express their art in its various forms. The CC O has indeed emerged as a dynamic force in Government of PI v Colegio de San Jose
the promotion of the country’s artistic and cultural heritage and the development of new
and modern art forms. Through the years it has helped raise the Filipino consciousness Two parcels of land in litigation do not form part of the bed of Laguna de Bay, and,
to our nationhood, and in the process, inculcated love for our country. consequently, do not belong to the public domain but to the claimant Colegio de San Jose as
(1) Land invaded by the sea is a foreshore land & belongs to the State; registration a part of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan.
of such is void and the land should be returned to the public domain.
** Where a certificate of title is issued for a foreshore land, the Republic has 10. Navigable Rivers – cannot be appropriated and registered under the Torrens
legitimate reason to demand its cancellation and the land reverted to the State. system; title and decree with this would not give the applicant any right or title to it. A
In that case, res judicata or estoppel is NO DEFENSE. river or branch thereof is not capable of private appropriation or acquisition by
(2) Submerged areas – permanently under water regardless of ebb and flow; form prescription. A land registration court has no jurisdiction over non-registrable
part of the public domain, hence inalienable & outside the commerce of man, properties, such as public navigable rivers which are parts of the public domain (for
unless otherwise transformed into public agricultural land. public use and not capable of private appropriation), and cannot validly adjudge the
** Once reclaimed and transformed into public agricultural lands, th e gov’t registration of title.
then may classify these lands as A & D. Thereafter, the gov’t may declare these
lands no longer needed for public service.
Mateo v Moreno proclamation until otherwise provided by law.
Sec 88 of CA No. 141
Ownership of a navigable stream may not be acquired under a free patent and the issuance
of the corresponding certificate of title does not change its public character. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of Sec 83 shall be non-alienable
and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again
NOR can the ownership thereof or its bed acquirable by prescription. It is noteworthy that declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President.
RA No. 2056 authorizes removal of unauthorized dikes or obstructions on public navigable
streams as “public nuisances or as prohibited constructions,” because the bed of navigable SIMILARLY
streams is public property, and ownership thereof is not acquirable by adverse possession.
Sec 14 of EO No. 292 states that the reserved land shall remain subject to the specific public
A dried-up river bed belongs to the State as property of public dominion, NOT to the purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation.
riparian owner, unless a law vests the ownership in some other person.
Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center v CA
11. Creeks – defined as a RECESS or ARM extending from a river and participating in the
ebb and flow of the sea. It is a property belonging to the public domain which is not The President issued an executive proclamation reserving a portion of the public domain
susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription, and as a public water, for medical center site purposes under the administration of the Director of Hospital in
it cannot be registered under the Torrens system in the name of any individual. (Note: Davao City. Respondent claimed that the portion of the area covered by the proclamation
kahit na may conversion into fishpond, the nature of the creek as a property of the public was the subject of sales patent granted to his father and, hence, the proclamation is
domain is NOT altered or changed), inoperative insofar as said portion is concerned.

A dried-up creek bed, as well was rivers and their natural beds, are property of PUBLIC SC: DISAGREED. Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry, and no lawful
DOMINION. settlement on them can be acquired. The claims of persons who have settled on, occupied,
Galang v Reyes and improved a parcel of public land which is later included in a reservation are considered
worthy of protection and are usually respected, but where the President, as authorized by
BUT if land was the former bed of a creek that changed its course and passed through the law, issues a proclamation reserving certain lands, and warning all persons to depart
property of the claimant, then, pursuant to Article 461 of the Civil Code, the ownership of therefrom, this terminates any rights previously acquired in such lands by a person who has
the old bed left to dry by the change of course was automatically acquired by the claimant. settled thereon in order to obtain a preferential right of purchase. And patents for lands
which have been previously granted, reserved from sale, or appropriated, are void.
12. Reservations for public and semi-public purposes – the PRESIDENT may reserve
by executive proclamation lands of the public domain for public or quasi-public purposes The subsequent reclassification of the area where the property is situated cannot be used
recognized by law. to defeat the rights of a private citizen who acquired the land in a valid and regular
proceeding conducted years earlier.
Section 83 of CA No. 141 provides:
IV Specific Evidence of Ownership
UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE SECRETARY OF DENR, the PRESIDENT may designate
by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use 1. Proof of ownership, generally: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in  Regalian Doctrine: all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
accordance with regulations prescribed for this purpose, or for quasi-public uses or within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
purposes when the public interest requires it..  All applicants in land registration proceedings have the burden of
Section 14, Chapter 4, Book III of EO No. 292 (aka Admin Code of 1987) provides that: overcoming the presumption that the land thus sough to be registered
forms part of the public domain.
(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for  Basic presumption: lands of whatever classification belong to the
specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is State and evidence of a land grant must be WELL-NIGH
not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject INCONTROVERTIBLE.
to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or  THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE HIS TITLE AND SHOULD NOT RELY
proclamation. ON THE ABSENCE OR WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE
(2) He shall also have the power to reserve from sale or other disposition and for OPPOSITORS. HE MUST PRESENT COMPETENT AND PERSUASIVE
specific public use or purposes, any land belonging to the private domain of the PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. He may not rely on general
Gov’t, or any of the Friar lands, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law, statements, or mere conclusions of law other than factual evidence of
and thereafter such land shall be used for the purposes specified by such possession and title.
 An application for registration is not necessarily entitled to have the (2) Classification of agricultural public land as A and D reckoned at the time of
land registered in his name simply because no one appears to oppose filing of application for registration (Republic v CA and Naguit).
his title and to oppose the registration of the land. Palomo v CA
 He must show, even in the absence of opposition, to the satisfaction of
the court, that he is the absolute owner in fee simple. Forest land is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot
 Where the applicant seeks the registration of title pursuant to the convert it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered
provisions of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the presumption disposable and alienable.
always is that the land pertains to the STATE. The applicant in this
case, by virtue of his imperfect title, must show open, continuous, (3) Naguit reaffirmed
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide Malabanan v Republic
claim of ownership for the required number of years.
2. Land must be classified as A and D land Naguit’s interpretation is more in keeping with the spirit of the Public Land Act, as
 A and D lands are part of the patrimonial properties of the State since amended, and the Property Registration Decree. These statutes were enacted to conform to
they are State properties available for private ownership. Patrimonial the State’s policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands
properties may be brought or sold or in any manner utilized with the to spur economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice. The statute’s
same effect as properties owned by private persons. requirements, as couched and amended, are stringent enough to safeguard against
 DECLASSIFICATION: before any land may be declassified from the fraudulent applications for registration of title over alienable and disposable public land.
forest group and converted into alienable or disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from the (4) Regalian doctrine should be applied with due regard to the provisions on
gov’t. social justice and land reform
(1) Section 48(b) CA No. 141 is premised on prior classification of land as A  ..must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and
and D injustice.
 Anyone who applies for confirmation of imperfect title under this Director of Lands v Funtilar
provision has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land
sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Every application for a concession of public land has to be viewed in the light of its peculiar
Amunategui v Director of Forestry circumstances.
Heirs of Amunategui v Director of Forestry
Since the applicant failed to present any proof that the land in question has been classified
as and forms part of the disposable public domain, whatever possession he might have had, The ruling here is warranted whenever a portion of the public domain is in danger of
and however long, CANNOT ripen into private ownership, and his failure to adduce clear ruthless exploitation, fraudulent titling, or other questionable practices. But when an
and convincing evidence of his claim over the land has given rise to the presumption that application appears to enhance the very reason behind the enactment of Act No. 496, PD
the land is still part of the public domain. 1529, and CA No. 141, then their provision SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO STAND IN THE WAY
 OPEN, EXCLUSIVE, and UNDISPUTED possession of alienable public OF THEIR OWN IMPLEMENTATION.
land for the period prescribed by CA No. 141 ipso jure converts such
land into private land. Judicial confirmation in such cases is ONLY A (5) Evidence deemed sufficient to establish classification of land as A and D
FORMALITY that merely confirms the earlier conversion of the land land.
into private land.  Land classification/reclassification CANNOT be assumed.
 Under Sec 48(b) of CA No. 141 & Sec 14(1) of PD 1529, the reckoning  The ff are sufficient to establish the classification of land as alienable
point of possession is June 12, 1945. BUT IT IS ONLY NECESSARY and disposable for purposes of orig registration:
THAT THE LAND IS ALREADY CLASSIFIED AS A and D LAND AT THE 1. Certification of the Bureau of Forest Development that the land
TIME OF THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. has been released as alienable and disposable land.
 With respect to private corporation: if its predecessors-in-interest 2. Land Classification Map showing that the land lies within the
have been in possession of the land in question since this date, or alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.
earlier, then it may rightfully apply for confirmation of title to the 3. Executive proclamation withdrawing from a reservation a
land. specific area and declaring the same open for entry, sale, or other
Director of Lands v IAC mode of disposition.
4. Legislative act or executive proclamation reserving a portion of
A private corporation may apply for judicial confirmation of the land without need of a the public domain for public or quasi-public use, which amounts
separate confirmation proceeding for its predecessors-in-interest first. to a transfer of ownership to the grantee.
International Hardwood and Veneer Co v UP
(4) A certified blue print or white print copy of the plan suffices for
When the gov’t ceded and transferred the property to UP, the Republic completely removed registration purposes
it from the public domain and, more specifically, in respect to the areas covered by the (5) What defines a piece of land is not the area but the boundaries thereof
timber license of petitioner, removed and segregated it from a public forest; it made UP the (6) Natural boundaries MUST be certain
absolute owner thereof. (7) Differences of boundaries in tax declarations

5. The report of a land inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the 4. Applicant must show both “possession and occupation” and “well-nigh
subject land was found inside an “agricultural zone” and is incontrovertible proof”
suitable for rice cultivation is binding on the courts. (1) Rule in case of conflict of possession
6. A certification by the CENRO of the DENR (stating that the land (2) Possession raises a question of fact
subject of an application is found to be within the alienable and (3) Mere casual cultivation is NOT possession under claim of overship
disposable site per a land classification project map) is (4) Evidence of overt acts of possession
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to show the real character of the land (5) Tenuous, unreliable and hearsay evidence of possession
subject of the application. (6) Possessions arising from a tax delinquency sale
7. The certification by DENR Regional Technical Director that “Lot (7) Commencement of possession
249 had been verified as belonging to the alienable and 5. Tax declarations; tax receipts
disposable area as early as July 18, 1925,” as annotated on the (1) Failure to pay taxes DOES NOT alone constitute abandonment of property
subdv plan, constitutes SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE (2) Irregular payment of taxes; discrepancies in area and boundary owners
LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
Republic v T.A.N. Properties Inc.

It is not enough for the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) or
Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) to certify that a land is
alienable and disposable. It must be proven that the DENR Sec had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and
that the land subj. of the application for registration falls within the approved area per
verification through survey by the PENRO / CENRO.
Republic v Castuera

The app must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

(6) DENR Memorandum No. 564 authorizes CENRO to issue certification to

show that land is A and D
 The memorandum clarified that the issuance of the required
certification to prove that the land subject of application for
registration is “within the competence and jurisdiction of the CENRO.
 CENRO: issues certs of land classification status for areas BELOW 50
hectares
 PENRO: issues certs of land classification status for lands covering
OVER 50 hectares

(7) Evidence deemed insufficient to show classification and release of land as

A and D
3. Survey Plan
(1) Only the LMB may approve a survey plan for original registration
purposes.
(2) Private surveys, duty of surveyors.
(3) Submission fo tracing cloth plan