Natres1 and obtain from them his deed, and until he did

Carino vs Insular Government the State remained the absolute owner.

212 SCRA 449
FACTS Director of lands vs CA
On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cariño went to the 129 SCRA 689
Court of Land Registration (CLR) to petition his FACTS:
inscription as the owner of a 146 hectare land -Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp.
he’s been possessing in the then municipality of represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario, acquired
Baguio. Mateo only presented possessory from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the
information and no other documentation. The Dumagat tribe 5 parcels of land
State opposed the petition averring that the -possession of the Infiels over the land dates
land is part of the US military reservation. The back before the Philippines was discovered by
CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State appealed. Magellan
Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should -land sought to be registered is a private land
be given to him by reason of immemorial use pursuant to RA 3872 granting absolute
and occupation as in the previous cases Cansino ownership to members of the non-Christian
vs Valdez and Tiglao vs Government; and that Tribes on land occupied by them or their
the right of the State over said land has ancestral lands, whether with the alienable or
prescribed. disposable public land or within the public
domain
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful -Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., has
owner of the land by virtue of his possession of introduced more than P45M worth of
it for some time. improvements
-ownership and possession of the land sought
HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run to be registered was duly recognized by the
against the government. The government is still government when the Municipal Officials of
the absolute owner of the land (regalian Maconacon, Isabela
doctrine). Further, Mateo’s possession of the -donated part of the land as the townsite of
land has not been of such a character as to Maconacon Isabela
require the presumption of a grant. No one has -IAC affirmed CFI: in favor of
lived upon it for many years. It was never used
for anything but pasturage of animals, except ISSUES:
insignificant portions thereof, and since the 1.W/N the land is already a private land - YES
insurrection against Spain it has apparently not 2. W/N the constitutional prohibition against
been used by Cariño for any purpose. their acquisition by private corporations or
associations applies- NO
While the State has always recognized the right
of the occupant to a deed if he proves a HELD: IAC affirmed Acme Plywood & Veneer
possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it Co., Inc
has always insisted that he must make that 1.YES already acquired, by operation of law not
proof before the proper administrative officers, only a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government, for it is not necessary that a
certificate of title should be issued in order that filed his opposition insofar as a portion of Lot
said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an No. 885containing 117,956 square meters was
application therefore is sufficient concerned and prayed that title to said portion
-it had already ceased to be of the public be confirmed and registered in his name.
domain and had become private property, at Issue:
least by presumption WON the lot in question can be subject of
-The application for confirmation is mere registration and confirmation of title in the
formality, the lack of which does not affect the name of the private person.
legal sufficiency of the title as would be Held:
evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to The opposition of the Director of Forestry was
be issued upon the strength of said patent. strengthened by the appellate court's finding
-The effect of the proof, wherever made, was that timber licenses had to be issued to certain
not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as licensees and even Jose Amunategui himself
already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier took the trouble to ask for a license to cut
law timber within the area. It was only sometime
2. NO . If it is accepted-as it must be-that the in1950 that the property was converted into
land was already private land to which the fishpond but only after a previous warning from
Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable the District Forester that the same could not be
title on October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired done because it was classified as "public forest”.
it from said owners, it must also be conceded A forested area classified as forest land of the
that Acme had a perfect right to make such public domain does not lose such classification
acquisition simply because loggers or settlers may have
-The only limitation then extant was that stripped it of its forest cover. "Forest lands" do
corporations could not acquire, hold or lease not have to be on mountains or in out of the
public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove
hectares. trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in
brackish or sea water may also be classified as
Amunategui vs Director of Forestry forest land. The possession of forest lands, no
129SCRA 69 matter how long, cannot ripen into private
ownership. Therefore, the lot in question never
Facts: ceased to be classified as forestland of public
There were two petitions for review on domain.
certiorari questioning the decision of the Court
of Appeals which declared the disputed Oh Cho vs Director of Lands
property as forestland, not subject to titling in 75 PHIL 890
favor of private persons, Borre and Amunategui.
The Director of Forestry, through the Provincial FACTS:
Fiscal of Capiz, also filed an opposition to the The opposition of the Director of Lands is based
application for registration of title claiming that on the applicant's lack of title to the lot, and on
the land was mangrove swamp which was still his disqualification, as alien, from acquiring
classified as forest land and part of the public lands of the public domain. The applicant, who
domain. Another oppositor, Emeterio Bereber is an alien, and his predecessors in interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and Boracay Mayor Jose Yap et al filed for
notorious possession of the lot from 1880 to the declaratory relief to have a judicial confirmation
filing of the application for registration on of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
January 17, 1940. The applicant failed to show purposes for the land they’ve been occupying in
that he has title to the lot that maybe confirmed Boracay. Yap et al alleged that Proclamation No.
under the Land Registration Act. He failed to 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on
show that he or any of his predecessors in their right to secure titles over their occupied
interest had acquired the lot from the lands. They declared that they themselves, or
Government, either by purchase or by grant, through their predecessors-in-interest, had
under the laws, orders and decrees been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
promulgated by the Spanish Government in the notorious possession and occupation in Boracay
Philippines, or by possessory information under since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time
the Mortgage Law (section 19, Act 496). immemorial. They declared their lands for tax
purposes and paid realty taxes on them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the applicant is entitled to a The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor
decree of registration thereof under the General (OSG), opposed the petition for
provisions of the Public Land Act (C. A. No, declaratory relief. The OSG countered that
141)? Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the
RULING: public domain. It formed part of the mass of
No. Under the provisions of the Act invoked by lands classified as “public forest,” which was not
the applicant, he is not entitled to a decree of available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a)
registration of the lot, because he is an alien of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the
disqualified from acquiring lands of the public Revised Forestry Code. Since Boracay Island had
domain (sections 48, 49, C. A. No. 141).The sale not been classified as alienable and disposable,
of the lot to the applicant should have been whatever possession they had cannot ripen into
declared null and void. Judgment is reversed ownership. RTC Ruled in favor of Yap et al. The
and the application for registration dismissed, OSG appealed.
without costs.
G.R. No. 173775
Herico vs DAR During the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, in May
95 SCRA 437 2006, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1 issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying
980/gr_23265_1980.html Boracay Island into four hundred (400) hectares
of reserved forest land (protection purposes)
and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100
Secretary of DENR vs Mayor Jose Yap (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable
GR. No. 167707 and disposable). The Proclamation likewise
FACTS provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on each
These are two consolidated cases. side of the centerline of roads and trails,
G.R. No. 167707 reserved for right-of-way and which shall form
part of the area reserved for forest land with the conservation of such patrimony. All
protection purposes. lands that have not been acquired from the
government, either by purchase or by grant,
Subsequently, Dr. Orlando Sacay, and other belong to the State as part of the inalienable
Boracay landowners in Boracay filed with the public domain.
Supreme Court (SC) an original petition for
prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of A positive act declaring land as alienable and
Proclamation No. 1064. They alleged that the disposable is required. In keeping with the
Proclamation infringed on their “prior vested presumption of State ownership, there must be
rights” over portions of Boracay. They have a positive act of the government, such as an
been in continued possession of their respective official proclamation, declassifying inalienable
lots in Boracay since time immemorial. They public land into disposable land for agricultural
have also invested billions of pesos in or other purposes. In the case at bar, no such
developing their lands and building proclamation, executive order, administrative
internationally renowned first class resorts on action, report, statute, or certification was
their lots. presented. The records are bereft of evidence
showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of
The OSG again opposed Sacay’s petition. The Boracay occupied by private claimants were
OSG argued that Sacay et al do not have a subject of a government proclamation that the
vested right over their occupied portions in the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such
island. Boracay is an unclassified public forest well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court
land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705. cannot accept the submission that lands
Being public forest, the claimed portions of the occupied by private claimants were already
island are inalienable and cannot be the subject open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land
of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is classification or reclassification cannot be
only the executive department, not the courts, assumed.
which has authority to reclassify lands of the
public domain into alienable and disposable Also, private claimants also contend that their
lands. There is a need for a positive government continued possession of portions of Boracay
act in order to release the lots for disposition. Island for the requisite period of ten (10) years
under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the
ISSUES: Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and island into private ownership. Private claimants’
PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose any legal obstacle for continued possession under Act No. 926 does
Yap et al and Sacay et al, and all those similarly not create a presumption that the land is
situated, to acquire title to their occupied lands alienable. It is plain error for petitioners to
in Boracay Island. argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and
Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession by
HELD: Yes. The SC ruled against Yap et al and private individuals of lands creates the legal
Sacay et al. The Regalian Doctrine dictates that presumption that the lands are alienable and
all lands of the public domain belong to the disposable.
State, that the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land and charged
Private claimants are not entitled to apply for occupying. The SC is constitutionally bound to
judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA decide cases based on the evidence presented
No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over and the laws applicable. As the law and
the occupied lands under the said law. There jurisprudence stand, private claimants are
are two requisites for judicial confirmation of ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, title over their occupied portions in Boracay
namely: even with their continued possession and
considerable investment in the island.
(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.

The tax declarations in the name of private

claimants are insufficient to prove the first
element of possession. The SC noted that the
earliest of the tax declarations in the name of
private claimants were issued in 1993. Being of
recent dates, the tax declarations are not
sufficient to convince this Court that the period
of possession and occupation commenced on
June 12, 1945.

Yap et al and Sacay et al insist that they have a

vested right in Boracay, having been in
possession of the island for a long time. They
have invested millions of pesos in developing
the island into a tourist spot. They say their
continued possession and investments give
them a vested right which cannot be unilaterally
rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064.

The continued possession and considerable

investment of private claimants do not
automatically give them a vested right in
Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply
for a title to the land they are presently