Secretary of DENR Vs Yap - Digest

G.R. No.
167707 October 8, 2008
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGION VI, REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, LANDS
MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VI PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER OF
KALIBO, AKLAN, REGISTER OF DEEDS, DIRECTOR OF LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF
TOURISM SECRETARY, DIRECTOR OF PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, petitioners,
vs.
MAYOR JOSE S. YAP, LIBERTAD TALAPIAN, MILA Y. SUMNDAD, and ANICETO YAP, in their behalf and in
behalf of all those similarly situated, respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. G.R. No. 173775 October 8, 2008
DR. ORLANDO SACAY and WILFREDO GELITO, joined by THE LANDOWNERS OF BORACAY SIMILARLY
SITUATED NAMED IN A LIST, ANNEX "A" OF THIS PETITION, petitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VI, PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, KALIBO, AKLAN, respondents.
FACTS:
Under discussion here are the consolidated cases regarding the right of the present occupants of Boracay
Island to secure titles over their occupied lands.
In 1978, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as tourist zone
and marine reserve under the administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). PTA Circular 3-82 was later
approved to implement Proclamation No. 1801. , Respondents-claimants Mayor Jose S. Yap, Jr., et al. alleged that
Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands,
declaring that they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial, declared their
lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them. The OSG opposed the petition and countered that Boracay Island
was an unclassified land of the public domain, forming part of the mass of lands classified as "public forest," which
was not available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry
Code. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents-claimants, ruling that neither Proclamation No. 1801 nor
PTA Circular No. 3-82 mentioned that lands in Boracay were inalienable or could not be the subject of disposition. Upon
the Republic's appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced by a
declaration that the lands they occupied since time immemorial were part of a forest reserve. The foregoing are the
facts in GR No. 167707.
During the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064
classifying Boracay Island into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six
hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable). Petitioners-
claimants Dr. Orlando Sacay, et al., filed with this Court an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification
of Proclamation No. 1064, alleging that " the Proclamation infringed on their "prior vested rights" over portions of
Boracay. They have been in continued possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time immemorial. They have
also invested billions of pesos in developing their lands and building internationally renowned first class resorts on
their lots." Petitioners-claimants contended that there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into
agricultural land. Being classified as neither mineral nor timber land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the first Public Land Act. Hence, their possession in the concept of
owner for the required period entitled them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The OSG, in opposing the
petitioners-claimants, argued that petitioners-claimants do not have a vested right over their occupied portions in the
island and that Boracay is an unclassified public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705. The OSG also
mentioned that it It is only the executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify lands of the
public domain into alienable and disposable lands.
ISSUES:
Do private claimants in G.R. No. 167707 and G.R. No. 173775 have a right to secure titles over their occupied
portions in Boracay?
Are unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural?
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that to this day, CA No. 141, as amended by RA 1942 and PD 1073, which now
provides for possession and occupation of the land applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier, remains as the existing
general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral
lands, and privately owned lands which reverted to the State. Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable
lands only to those lands which have been "officially delimited and classified." Because of this, the Court emphasized
that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable
public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive
order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The Court cannot accept the
submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land
classification or reclassification cannot be assumed.
Also, the SC discussed that the position of the private claimants that Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926
would have automatically made all lands in the Philippines, except those already classified as timber or mineral land,
alienable and disposable lands is utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long-entrenched Regalian
doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa cases applies only to an applicant for judicial or administrative
conformation of imperfect title under Act No. 926. The presumption cannot apply to landowners, such as private
claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who failed to avail themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them,
their land remained unclassified and, by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, continued to be owned by the State.
In view of the foregoing, the SC ruled that private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under CA No. 141 because they are unable to comply with the two requisites for judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and (2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of
the public domain. Private claimants bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, relying on the Philippine Bill of
1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801, must fail because of the absence of the second element of alienable
and disposable land. Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Proclamation
No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to prove the
first element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.

Secretary of DENR Vs Yap - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secretary of DENR Vs Yap - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secretary of DENR Vs Yap - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

167707 October 8, 2008

G.R. No. G.R. No. 173775 October 8, 2008

You might also like