Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Director of Lands Vs CA and Bisnar

    Uploaded by

    edrea_abon
    1) Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed an application to register two parcels of land that they claimed to have inherited. 2) The Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the registration, arguing the lands were classified as timberland under public dominion. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the registration, finding the applicants had possessed the lands for over 80 years. However, the Supreme Court ruled that possession alone cannot result in private ownership of forest lands, and an affirmative act of declassification by the executive branch is required first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Director of Lands Vs CA and Bisnar

    Uploaded by

    edrea_abon
    1K views1 page
    1) Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed an application to register two parcels of land that they claimed to have inherited. 2) The Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the registration, arguing the lands were classified as timberland under public dominion. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the registration, finding the applicants had possessed the lands for over 80 years. However, the Supreme Court ruled that possession alone cannot result in private ownership of forest lands, and an affirmative act of declassification by the executive branch is required first.

    Original Description:

    Land titles and deeds case

    Original Title

    Director of Lands vs CA and Bisnar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed an application to register two parcels of land that they claimed to have inherited. 2) The Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the registration, arguing the lands were classified as timberland under public dominion. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the registration, finding the applicants had possessed the lands for over 80 years. However, the Supreme Court ruled that possession alone cannot result in private ownership of forest lands, and an affirmative act of declassification by the executive branch is required first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Director of Lands Vs CA and Bisnar

    Uploaded by

    edrea_abon
    1) Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed an application to register two parcels of land that they claimed to have inherited. 2) The Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the registration, arguing the lands were classified as timberland under public dominion. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the registration, finding the applicants had possessed the lands for over 80 years. However, the Supreme Court ruled that possession alone cannot result in private ownership of forest lands, and an affirmative act of declassification by the executive branch is required first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Director of Lands v.

    Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 708)


    DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, IBARRA BISNAR and AMELIA BISNAR, respondents. G.R.
    No. 83609; October 26, 1989
    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 CFI of Capiz. They claimed that they inherited those parcels of land. The
    Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on the ground that said
    parcels of land were part of a timberland, a public dominion, so it cannot be the subject of the registration proceedings.
    After the hearing, the CFI ordered the registration of the title of the lots in the names of the applicants, herein private
    respondents after finding that the applicants and their predecessors- in-interest have been in open, public, continuous,
    peaceful and adverse possession of the subject parcels of land under bona fide claims of ownership for
    more than 80 years. The CA affirmed the CFIs decision, holding that the classification of the lotsas timberland by the
    Director of Forestry cannot 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 of the Philippine Islands (40
    Phil.10).
    Issue/s:
    Whether or not the possession of forestlands or timberlands for 80 years can ripen to private ownership.
    Ruling:
    No. The Court ruled that possession of forestlands, however long, cannot ripe ninto private ownership. It emphasized that
    a positive act of the government, particularly the Executive Department is needed to declassify land, which is classified as
    forest, and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural 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 the Bureau
    of Forestry, an office under the Executive Department, and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to
    register under the Torrens System.

    You might also like