Heirs of Jose Amunategui V. Director of Forestry, GR No. L-27873, 1983-11-29

This Court ruled in the leading case of Director of Forestry v.
Muñoz (23 SCRA 1184) that

possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership. And in
Republic v. Animas (56
SCRA 499), we granted the petition on the ground that the area covered by the patent and
title was not disposable public land, it being a part of the forest zone and any patent and title
to said area is void ab initio. It bears emphasizing that a... positive act of Government is
needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The findings of the Court of Appeals are particularly well-grounded in the in... stant petition.
In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he
meets the requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1942. He must overcome the presumption that the land he is applying for
is part... of the public domain but that he has an interest therein sufficient to warrant
registration in his name because of an imperfect title such as those derived from old
Spanish grants or that he has had continuous, open, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural... lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership for at least thirty (30) years preceding the filing of his application.
The decision of the appellate court is not based merely on the presumptions implicit in
Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended. The records show that Lot No. 885 never ceased
to be classified as forest land of the public domain.
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. L-30035 and G.R. No. L-27873 are DISMISSED for
lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, GR No. L-27873, 1983-
11-29
Facts:
Roque Borre, petitioner in G.R. No. L-30035, and Melquiades Borre, filed the application for
registration. In due time, the heirs of Jose Amunategui, petitioners in G.R. No. L-27873 filed
an opposition to the application of Roque... and Melquiades Borre. At the same time, they
prayed that the title to a portion of Lot No. 885 of Pilar Cadastre containing 527,747 square
meters be confirmed and registered in the names of said Heirs of Jose Amunategui
The Director of Forestry, through the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz, also filed an opposition to
the application for registration of title claiming that the land was mangrove swamp which
was still classified as forest land and part of the public domain.
Emeterio Bereber filed his opposition insofar as a portion of Lot No. 885 containing 117,956
square meters was concerned and prayed that title to said portion be confirmed and
registered in his name.
Issues:
whether or not Lot No. 885 is public forest land, not capable of registration in the names of
the... private applicants.
Ruling:
The petition is without merit.
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such
classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.
Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with... grass or planted to
crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains
or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and
other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest... land.
The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as
"forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so... that it may form part of the
disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title
do not apply.
s not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with... grass
or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be
on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa
palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest...
land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as
"forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so... that it may form part of the
disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title
do not apply.
This Court ruled in the leading case of Director of Forestry v. Muñoz (23 SCRA 1184) that
possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership. And in
Republic v. Animas (56
SCRA 499), we granted the petition on the ground that the area covered by the patent and
title was not disposable public land, it being a part of the forest zone and any patent and title
to said area is void ab initio. It bears emphasizing that a... positive act of Government is
needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The findings of the Court of Appeals are particularly well-grounded in the in... stant petition.
In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he
meets the requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1942. He must overcome the presumption that the land he is applying for
is part... of the public domain but that he has an interest therein sufficient to warrant
registration in his name because of an imperfect title such as those derived from old
Spanish grants or that he has had continuous, open, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural... lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership for at least thirty (30) years preceding the filing of his application.
The decision of the appellate court is not based merely on the presumptions implicit in
Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended. The records show that Lot No. 885 never ceased
to be classified as forest land of the public domain.
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. L-30035 and G.R. No. L-27873 are DISMISSED for
lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
The Court holds that the correct interpretation for Section 14 (1) is Naguit, not
Herbierto, the latter being only an orbiter dicta to a case where the MTC did not acquire
jurisdiction to settle the original registration. Thus:
1. The requirement of bona fide ownership since June 12, 1945 is satisfied when at
the time of the application, the land is already classified as alienable and
disposable. Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur
sentencia.
2. A contrary ruling with result to absurdity rendering the presumption of the right
nugatory and the provision inoperative, aggravated by the fact that at the time the
Philippine is still not an independent state.
3. The correct interpretation then is that if the State, at the time the application is
made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or
disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to
utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State
irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. If the
reverse is true, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
The Court rules that the interpretation for Sec 14 (2) requires a mix of interpretation of
Art. 1113, Art. 1137, and Art. 420-422 of the New Civil Code.
1. It is well settled, per Art. 1113, that only objects within the commerce of men and
the patrimonial property of the State can be subject to acquisitive or extraordinary
acquisitive prescription.
2. It is also clear that in Arts. 420-422, the property of public dominion when no
longer in use, is converted into patrimonial property, if and only if, as held in
Ignacio vs. Director of Lands or Laurel vs. Garcia, there is a positive act of the
executive or legislative declaring lands to be such.
3. Hence, combining both rulings, it is clear that only when there is a positive act,
regardless if the land was classified as alienable and disposable, that the land
sought to be registered, can be acquired through prescription.
Applying to the case at bar:
1. Sec. 14 (1) is unsatisfied as the earliest tax declarations presented was 1948. No
other substantive evidence was presented.
2. Sec. 14 (2) is also unsatisfied as the subject property was declared as alienable
or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended
for public use service or for the development of the national evidence,
conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject
property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change
its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil
Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.
Issue: Who is entitled to the land and the products thereof?
Ruling: The patents when registered in the corresponding Register of Deeds are indispensible. We
regard these as veritable Torrens Title subject to no encumbrance except those stated therein, plus
those specified by the statutes, and lease is not one of them. In addition, when the lease was renewed
in 1949, the portion in question was no longer public land subject to the disposition of the Director of
Lands because it had already been granted to Margarita Juanson and had become private property. In
Sec 122 of the Land Registration Law, the documents mentioned wherein lands are “alienated, granted,
or conveyed” are documents transferring ownership, not documents of lease transferring ownership.
The Torrens Title of Dagdag must prevail.

Heirs of Jose Amunategui V. Director of Forestry, GR No. L-27873, 1983-11-29

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Jose Amunategui V. Director of Forestry, GR No. L-27873, 1983-11-29

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Heirs of Jose Amunategui V. Director of Forestry, GR No. L-27873, 1983-11-29

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Court ruled in the leading case of Director of Forestry v.

Muñoz (23 SCRA 1184) that

Applying to the case at bar:

Issue: Who is entitled to the land and the products thereof?

You might also like