CHAVEV V. PUBLIC ESTATES AND AMARI the reclaimed lands to AMARI.

Petitioner prays that PEA

publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA,
Facts: On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7, Article III, of the
issued Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on
tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged matters of public concern.
areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, lease and sell any and
all kinds of lands." On the same date, then President Marcos Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the
issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA the President, petitioner now prays that on "constitutional and
"lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and
Bay" under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation void."
Project (MCCRRP).
Issue: The issues raised by petitioner, PEA and AMARI are as
On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino follows:
issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA 1. Whether the reliefs prayed for are moot and academic
"the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite because of subsequent events;
Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a 2. Whether the petition should be dismissed for failing to
total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight observe the principle of governing the heirarchy of courts;
hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, 3. Whether the petition should be dismissed for non-
on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of exhaustion of administrative remedies;
Parañaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, 4. Whether petitioner has locus standi;
and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed 5. Whether the constitutional right to information includes
islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the southern information on on-going neogtiations BEFORE a final
portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Parañaque City. agreement;
6. Whether the stipulations in the amended joint venture
PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation agreement for the transfer to AMARI of certain lands, reclaimed
without public bidding. On April 28, 1995, the Board of and still to be reclaimed violate the 1987 Constitution; and
Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA. 7. Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the issue whether
On June 8, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos, through then the amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the government
Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA.
Held: 1. We rule that the signing and of the Amended JVA by
The Senate Committees reported the results of their PEA and AMARI and its approval by the President cannot
investigation in Senate Committee Report No. 560 dated operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its
September 16, 1997. Among the conclusions of their report are: jurisdiction.
(1) the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under
the JVA are lands of the public domain which the government PEA and AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA.
has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA on
alienate these lands; (2) the certificates of title covering the constitutional grounds necessarily includes preventing its
Freedom Islands are thus void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal. implementation if in the meantime PEA and AMARI have signed
one in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner's principal basis in
On December 5, 1997, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued assailing the renegotiation of the JVA is its violation of the
Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 creating a Legal Task Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits the
Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA in view of government from alienating lands of the public domain to private
Senate Committee Report No. 560. The members of the Legal corporations. The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial
Task Force were the Secretary of Justice, the Chief Presidential contract but one which seeks to transfer title and ownership to
Legal Counsel, and the Government Corporate Counsel. The 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of Manila
Legal Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the Bay to a single private corporation.
conclusions reached by the Senate Committees.
Also, the instant petition is a case of first impression being a
On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez ("Petitioner" for wholly government owned corporation performing public as well
brevity) as a taxpayer, filed the instant Petition for Mandamus as proprietary functions. All previous decisions of the Court
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction involving Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, or its
and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends the counterpart provision in the 1973 Constitution, covered
government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of agricultural lands sold to private corporations which acquired the
1
lands from private parties. agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of
'paramount public interest,' and if they 'immediately affect the
Lastly, there is a need to resolve immediately the social, economic and moral well being of the people.'
constitutional issue raised in this petition because of the possible
transfer at any time by PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to We rule that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen,
portions of the reclaimed lands. Under the Amended JVA, PEA is involves the enforcement of constitutional rights — to
obligated to transfer to AMARI the latter's seventy percent information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources —
proportionate share in the reclaimed areas as the reclamation matters of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has
progresses, The Amended JVA even allows AMARI to mortgage the requisite locus standi.
at any time the entire reclaimed area to raise financing for the
reclamation project. 5. The State policy of full transparency in all transactions
involving public interest reinforces the people's right to
2. The instant case, however, raises constitutional issues of information on matters of public concern. This State policy is
transcendental importance to the public. The Court can resolve expressed in Section 28, Article II of the Constitution, thus:
this case without determining any factual issue related to the “Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
case. Also, the instant case is a petition for mandamus which falls adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
under the original jurisdiction of the Court under Section 5, transactions involving public interest."
Article VIII of the Constitution. We resolve to exercise primary
jurisdiction over the instant case. Contrary to AMARI's contention, the commissioners of the
1986 Constitutional Commission understood that the right to
3. PEA was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to
public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The law the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a consummated
obligated PEA make this public disclosure even without demand contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to
from petitioner or from anyone. PEA failed to make this public information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if
disclosure because the original JVA, like the Amended JVA, was no contract is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may
the result of a negotiated contract, not of a public bidding. be too late for the public to expose its defects.
Considering that PEA had an affirmative statutory duty to make
the public disclosure, and was even in breach of this legal duty, Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the
petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial intervention. dark until the contract, which may be grossly disadvantageous to
the government or even illegal, becomes a fait accompli.
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does
not apply when the issue involved is a purely legal or However, the right to information does not compel PEA to
constitutional question. The principal issue in the instant case is prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the
the capacity of AMARI to acquire lands held by PEA in view of renegotiation of the JVA. 34 The right only affords access to
the constitutional ban prohibiting the alienation of lands of the records, documents and papers, which means the opportunity to
public domain to private corporations. We rule that the principle inspect and copy them. One who exercises the right must copy
of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply in the the records, documents and papers at his expense. The exercise
instant case. of the right is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the
integrity of the public records and to minimize disruption to
The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit government operations, like rules specifying when and how to
because the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply with its conduct the inspection and copying.
constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved
here. First is the right of citizens to information on matters of 6. Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889 defined property of
public concern. Second is the application of a constitutional public dominion as follows:
provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of "Art. 339. Property of public dominion is —
alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino Citizens. 1. That devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
The thrust of the second issue is to prevent PEA from alienating torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, riverbanks,
hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain in shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character;
violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a 2. That belonging exclusively to the State which, without
constitutional duty to the nation. being of general public use, is employed in some public service,
or in the development of the national wealth, such as walls,
4. Ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute fortresses, and other works for the defense of the territory, and
actions questioning the validity of acts or orders of government mines, until granted to private individuals.
2
 alienable public lands. An individual could own as many
Property devoted to public use referred to property open for corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could
use by the public. In contrast, property devoted to public service even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees
referred to property used for some specific public service and as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a
open only to those authorized to use the property.Property of convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on
public dominion referred not only to property devoted to public acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public
use, but also to property not so used but employed to develop the domain.
national wealth. This class of property constituted property of
public dominion although employed for some economic or PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquino's actual issuance
commercial activity to increase the national wealth. of a special patent covering the Freedom Islands, is equivalent to
an official proclamation classifying the Freedom Islands as
"Art. 341. Property of public dominion, when no longer alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Being neither
devoted to public use or to the defense of the territory, shall timber, mineral, nor national park lands, the reclaimed Freedom
become a part of the private property of the State." This Islands necessarily fall under the classification of agricultural
provision, however, was not self-executing. The legislature, or lands of the public domain. Under the 1987 Constitution,
the executive department pursuant to law, must declare the agricultural lands of the public domain are the only natural
property no longer needed for public use or territorial defense resources that the State may alienate to qualified private parties.
before the government could lease or alienate the property to All other natural resources, such as the seas or bays, are "waters .
private parties. . . owned by the State" forming part of the public domain, and
are inalienable pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature Constitution.
Sec. 55. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being
neither timber nor mineral land, shall be classified as suitable for In short, DENR is vested with the power to authorize the
residential purposes or for commercial, industrial, or other reclamation of areas under water, while PEA is vested with the
productive purposes other than agricultural purposes, and shall power to undertake the physical reclamation of areas under water
be open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under whether directly or through private contractors. DENR is also
the provisions of this chapter, and not otherwise. empowered to classify lands of the public domain into alienable
or disposable lands subject to the approval of the President. On
The rationale behind this State policy is obvious. Government the other hand, PEA is tasked to develop, sell or lease the
reclaimed, foreshore and marshy public lands for non- reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain.
agricultural purposes retain their inherent potential as areas for
public service. This is the reason the government prohibited the Clearly, the mere physical act of reclamation by PEA of
sale, and only allowed the lease, of these lands to private parties. foreshore or submerged areas does not make the reclaimed lands
The State always reserved these lands for some future public alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less
service. patrimonial lands of PEA. Likewise, the mere transfer by the
National Government of lands of the public domain to PEA does
However, government reclaimed and marshy lands, although not make the lands alienable or disposable lands of the public
subject to classification as disposable public agricultural lands, domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA.
could only be leased and not sold to private parties because of
Act No. 2874. There is no express authority under either PD No. 1085 or EO
No. 525 for PEA to sell its reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085 merely
The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 transferred "ownership and administration" of lands reclaimed
Constitution banning private corporations from acquiring any from Manila Bay to PEA, while EO No. 525 declared that lands
kind of alienable land of the public domain. Like the 1973 reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be owned by PEA." PEA's
Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to develop, improve,
hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. As acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any
in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law governing and all kinds of lands . . . owned, managed, controlled and/or
the lease to private corporations of reclaimed, foreshore and operated by the government." 87 (Emphasis supplied) There is,
marshy alienable lands of the public domain is still CA No. 141. therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands,
whether patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA
Without the constitutional ban, individuals who already may sell to private parties its patrimonial properties in
acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional
domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more limitations. The constitutional ban on private corporations from
3
acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to Court is not the trier of facts, and this last issue involves a
the sale of PEA's patrimonial lands. determination of factual matters.

Moreover, under Section 79 of PD No. 1445, otherwise WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Public
known as the Government Auditing Code, the government is Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development
required to sell valuable government property through public Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from
bidding. Section 79 of PD No. 1445 mandates that:... "In the implementing the Amended Joint Venture Agreement which
event that the public auction fails, the property may be sold at a is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio.
private sale at such price as may be fixed by the same committee
or body concerned and approved by the Commission."
Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 708)
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS,
However, the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 covered not IBARRA BISNAR and AMELIA BISNAR, respondents. G.R.
only the Freedom Islands and the additional 250 hectares still to No. 83609; October 26, 1989
be reclaimed, it also granted an option to AMARI to reclaim
another 350 hectares. The original JVA, a negotiated contract, Facts:
enlarged the reclamation area to 750 hectares. The failure of On July 20,1976, Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed their joint
public bidding on December 10, 1991, involving only 407.84 application for the registration of two parcels of land,
located in the province of Capiz, in the CFI of Capiz.
hectares, is not a valid justification for a negotiated sale of 750
They claimed that they inherited those parcels of land. The
hectares, almost double the area publicly auctioned. Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest
Development opposed the application on the ground that said
Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of the patent or parcels of land were part of a timberland, a public dominion, so it
issuance of the certificate of title the alienable land of the public cannot be the subject of the registration proceedings. After the
domain automatically becomes private land cannot apply to hearing, the CFI ordered the registration of the title of the lots in
government units and entities like PEA. 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
The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in possession of the subject parcels of land under bona
accordance with Section 60 of CA No. 141 does not fide claims of ownership for more than 80
automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain into years. The CA affirmed the CFI’s decision,
private or patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public holding that the classification of the lotsas timberland by the
domain must be transferred to qualified private parties, or to Director of Forestry cannot prevail in the absence of proof that
government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before the said lots are indeed more valuable as forest land than as
agricultural land, citing as authority the case of Ankron vs.
these lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Otherwise,
Government of the Philippine Islands (40 Phil. 10).
the constitutional ban will become illusory if Congress can
declare lands of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands Issue/s:
in the hands of a government agency tasked to dispose of public Whether or not the possession of forestlands or timberlands for
lands. 80 years can ripen to private ownership.

To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to Ruling:

No. The Court ruled that possession of forestlands, however
be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross
long, cannot ripe ninto private ownership. It emphasized that
violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from a positive act of the government, particularly the Executive
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. This Department is needed to declassify land, which is classified as
scheme can even be applied to alienable agricultural lands of the forest, and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for
public domain since PEA can "acquire . . . any and all kinds of agricultural or other purposes before registration of which may
lands." 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 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under
Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name the Torrens System.
of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may lease
these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer
ownership of these lands to private corporations. SABELO MONTANO Y MARCIAL vs. THE INSULAR
GOVERNMENT, ET AL.
7. Considering that the Amended JVA is null and void ab
Facts: :
initio, there is no necessity to rule on this last issue. Besides, the
4
Isabelo Montano presented a petition to the Court of Land ISABELO MONTANO Y MARCIAL vs. THE INSULAR
Registration for the inscription of a piece of land in the barrio of GOVERNMENT, ET AL.
Libis, municipality of Caloocan, used as a fishery having a
superficial area of 10,805 square meters, and bounded as set out Facts:
in the petition; its value according to the last assessment being
Isabelo Montano presents a petition to the Court of Land
$505.05, United States currency. This petition was opposed by
Registration for the inscription of a piece of land in the barrio of
the Solicitor-General in behalf of the Director of Lands, and by
Libis, municipality of Caloocan, used as a fishery. This petition
the entity known asObras Pias de la Sagrada Mitra, the former on
was opposed by the Solicitor-General in behalf of the Director of
the ground that the land in question belonged to the Government
Lands on the ground that the land in question belonged to the
of the United States, and the latter, that it was the absolute owner
Government of the United States, and the latter, that it was the
of all the dry land along the eastern boundary of the said fishery.
absolute owner of all the dry land along the eastern boundary of
The Court of Land Registration in its decision of December 1,
the said fishery. The Court of Land Registration in its decision of
1906, dismissed the said oppositions without costs and decreed,
December 1, 1906, dismissed the said oppositions without costs
after a general entry by default, the adjudication and registration
in favor of Isabelo Montano y Marcial.
of the property described in the petition, in favor of Isabelo
Montano y Marcial. From this decision only counsel for the Issue:
Director of Public Lands appealed to this court. and precisely
Isabelo Montano sought title thereon on the strength of 10 years' W/N the property in question is an agricultural land.
occupation pursuant to paragraph 6, section 5 of Act 926 of the
Philippine Commission Held:

Issue: The property is an agricultural land

Whether or not the land in question can be acquired by Montano The section quoted is section 54, paragraph 6, Act No. 926, in
which the phrase used is "agricultural public lands."
Held:
Throughout the opinion the phrase "public lands" is repeatedly
Accordingly, "government land" and "public domain" are not and exclusively used. The entire discussion was directed to the
synonymous items. The first includes not only the second, but question as to whether the property there in question being
also other lands of the Government already reserved or devoted "public land," it could be considered as agricultural public land
to public use or subject to private right. In other words, the and the conclusion reached is stated at page 182, as follows:
Government owns real estate which is part of the "public lands"
and other real estate which is not part thereof. Government In other words, that the phrase "agricultural land," as used in Act
property was of two kinds — first, that of public use or service, No. 926, means those public lands acquired from Spain which
said to be of public ownership, and second, that of having a are not timber or mineral lands.
private character or use. (Civil Code, arts. 339 and 340.) Lands
In that case the land in question was a long distance from the sea.
of the first class, while they retain their public character are
In fact, the entire town of Molo was between it and the water. It
inalienable. Those of the second are not. Therefore, there is much
could in no sense be called tidal land. Therefore, the opinion was
real property belonging to the Government which is not affected
devoted to a consideration of not what were "public lands" but
by statutes for the settlement, prescription or sale of public lands.
whether this particular tract was or was not agricultural public
Examples in point are properties occupied by public buildings or
land. The question what the phrase "public lands" meant neither
devoted to municipal or other governmental uses.
considered nor decided in that opinion, for its resolution was not
It is settled that the general legislation of Congress in respect to necessary. In the concurring opinion, however, that question was
public lands does not extend to tide lands. It provided that the discussed and it was stated that the phrase "public lands" used in
scrip might be located on the unoccupied and unappropriated Act No. 926 must be interpreted according to the American
public lands. As said inNewhall vs. Sanger(92 U.S. 761, 763.) A understanding of the words employed and the meaning of the
marshland which is inundated by the rise of tides belong to the terms as definitely fixed by the decrees of the United States
State and is not susceptible to appropriation by occupation, has Supreme Court.
no application in the present case inasmuch as in said case the
land subject matter of the litigation was not yet titled. IGNACIO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND VALERIANO

G.R. No. L-3714 January 26, 1909

108 SCRA 335

5
FACTS failed to establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had
been in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the Subject
Faustino Ignacio filed an application to register a parcel of land Lots in the concept of owners since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
(mangrove) which he alleged he acquired by right of accretion
since it adjoins a parcel of land owned by the Ignacio. His Issue:
application is opposed by the Director of Lands, Laureano 1.) Does the MTC have the jurisdiction?
Valeriano, contending that said land forms part of the public 2.) Did the respondents had open, continuous, and
domain. The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that adverse possession of the Subject Lots in the
said land formed part of the public domain. Thus the case at bar. concept of owners since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

Held:
1.) On Jurisdiction – the procedural defect or the
ISSUE: misjoinder, wherein two or more distinct or
contradicting rights or demands are joined, does not
Whether or not the land forms part of the public domain remove the court’s jurisdiction. HOWEVER, in the case
at hand there was indeed a lack of jurisdiction not
HELD: YES because of the misjoinder but because of: a.) THE
REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICATION, it is mandatory
that the publication be made in the official gazette and
1. The law on accretion cited by Ignacio in inapplicable in the in a newspaper of general circulation before the initial
present case because it refers to accretion or deposits on the hearing. As we can notice the publication on the
banks of rivers while this refers to action in the Manila Bay, Freeman and the Banat News was only done 3 months
which is held to be part of the sea after the hearing which renders inutile the intention of
the mandatory publication.
2.) Respondents failed to comply with the required
2. Although it is provided for by the Law of Waters that lands
period of possession of the Subject Lots for the
added to shores by accretions caused by actions of the sea form
judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or
part of the pubic domain when they are no longer necessary for
incomplete title.
purposes of public utility, only the executive and the legislative
The said lots are public lands classified as alienable and
departments have the authority and the power to make the
disposable only on June 25, 1963
declaration that any said land is no longer necessary for public
and the respondents were seeking for a confirmation of
use. Until such declaration is made by said departments, the lot
imperfect or incomplete title through judicial
in question forms part of the public domain, not available for
legalization. Under Sec.48 of the Public Land Act,
private appropriation or ownership.
which is the ruling law in this case, Respondents were
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. not able to prove their continuous ownership of the land
JEREMIAS AND DAVID HERBIETO,Respondents. [G.R. since June 12, 1945 or earlier, because said lands were
No. 156117. May 26, 2005] only classified as alienable and disposable only on June
25, 1963.
Facts:
This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the
CA, affirming the decision of the MTC granting the application Application for land registration was dismissed.
for land registration of the respondents.
Respondents filed a single application for two parcel of BALBOA V. FERRALES
lands located at Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu. They claim to
be the owner of said lots by virtue of its purchase from Facts
respondents’ parents. They also submitted pertinent documents to
prove their claim and with emphasis on the Certifications by the (1)in the year 1913, the plaintiff Buenaventura Balboa filled with
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office the Bureau of Lands an application for homestead, No. 10619,
(CENRO) of the DENR on its finding that the Subject Lots are under the provisions of Act No. 926, covering a tract of land
alienable and disposable, by virtue of Forestry Administrative situated in the barrio of Culis, municipality of Hermosa, Province
Order No. 4-1063, dated 25 June 1963. of Bataan, containing 14 hectares, 49 ares and 77 centares.(2)
An initial hearing was set on Sept. 3, 1999 and Five years thereafter, or in 1918, Balboa submitted proof,
notifications were posted in conspicuous places on the subject showing his residence upon, and cultivation of said land, as well
lots and on the municipal hall. The notice was also published in as his compliance with all of the other requirements of section 3
the official gazette on Aug. 2 1999 and on the Freeman and of said Act No. 926, which final proof was approved by the
Banat news on Dec. 19, 1999. Director of Lands on February 15, 1918. On July 1, 1919, said
MTC rendered a decision granting title to the Act No. 926 was repealed by Act No. 2874.(3) On September 10,
respondents. Petitioner assailed said decision on the grounds of: 1920, or over a year after Act No. 2874 had gone into effect, the
1.) Jurisdiction, since there was a procedural defect in the filing homestead patent for said land, otherwise known as certificate of
of a single application for two parcels of land; 2.) Respondents title No. 91 was issued nfavor of Buenventura Balboa by the

6
Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.(4) On August 11, The issue in the case at bar pertains to ownership of 15 parcels of
1924, said Buenaventura Balboa, for and in consideration of the land in Tiwi, Albay which form part of the "Tiwi Hot Spring
sum of P950, sold said land to the defendantCecilio L. Farrales; National Park." On June 13, 1913, Executive Order No. 40 was
and on October 16, 1924, the latter secured in his name transfer
issued which reserved for provincial park purposes.
certificate of title No. 650 of said land.On March 6, 1926, the
plaintiff commenced the present action for the purpose of having Subsequently, the then Court of First Instance of Albay, 15th
said sale declared null and void on the ground of lack of consent Judicial District, USA, ordered the registration of 15 parcels of
on his part and fraud on the part of the defendant, and on the land covered by Executive Order No. 40 in the name of Diego
further ground that said sale was contrary to, and in violation of Palomo. Diego Palomo donated these parcels of to his heirs,
the provisions of section 116 of Act No. 2874.The lower court herein petitioners, Ignacio and Carmen Palomo
Judge rendered a decision on the basis that the said sale was null
and void since, The sale was done before the lapse of five years On July 10, 1954 President Ramon Magsaysay issued
upon the issuance of the certificate, which in accordance with act Proclamation No. 47 converting the area embraced by Executive
no. 2874.
Order No. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot Spring National Park," under the
control, management, protection and administration of the
ISSUE Whether or not Act 2874 and not act 926 shall be
defunct Commission of Parks and Wildlife, now a division of the
applicable to Balboa.
Bureau of Forest Development. The area was never released as
Ruling: No, Since the acquisition of the land and final alienable and disposable portion of the public domain and,
completion of the requirements was done by Balboa prior to the therefore, is neither susceptible to disposition under the
repeal of Act 926 by act no. 2874, also upon the submission of provisions of the Public Land Law (CA 141) nor registrable
the final requirement by Balboa, he acquire vested right over the under the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496).
patent granted unto him. The fact the homestead patent or
The Palomos, however, continued in possession of the property,
certificate of title No. 91 was issued on September 10, 1920, after
paid real estate taxes thereon and introduced improvements by
the repeal of Act No. 926, and under the provisions of section
planting rice, bananas, pandan and coconuts. On April 8, 1971,
116 of the repealing Act No. 2874, cannot prejudice the vested
petitioner Carmen vda.de Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio
right acquired by Balboa under the provisions of the former Act.
Palomo and Trinidad Pascual mortgaged the parcels of land
The issuance of the certificate of title was a mere ministerial act.
The only prohibition contained in Act No. 926 against alienation The Republic of the Philippines filed for annulment and
of homestead acquired under said law, appears in section 4 cancellation of Certificates of Title involving the 15 parcels of
thereof, which reads as follows: "No lands acquired under the land registered in the name of the petitioners.
provisions of this chapter shall in any event become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuance of a ISSUE:
patent therefor." It follows, therefore that the sale of the land in
question by the plaintiff Balboa to the defendantFarrales does not RULING:
infringe said prohibition and consequently said sale is valid and
The Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown by discovery and
binding, and should be given full force and effect of law. Section
conquest in the 16th century. Before the Treaty of Paris in April
116 of Act No. 2874, which prohibits the sale of homestead land
11, 1899, our lands, whether agricultural, mineral or forest were
during the period of five years subsequent to the issuance of the
under the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish
patent or certificate of title upon which rests the decision of the
Crown. Hence, private ownership of land could only be acquired
court a quo, cannot be invoked to annul the sale in question. Said
through royal concessions which were documented in various
prohibition, if applied in the present case, would impair and
forms, such as (1) Titulo Real or Royal Grant," (2) Concession
diminish the vested rights, hence the court reversed the decision
Especial or Special Grant, (3) Titulo de Compra or Title by
of the lower court.
Purchase and (4) InformacionPosesoria or Possessory
SPOUSES IGNACIO PALOMO and TRINIDAD PASCUAL, Information title obtained under the Spanish Mortgage Law or
and CARMEN PALOMO VDA. DE BUENAVENTURA, under the Royal Decree of January 26, 1889.
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, FAUSTINO J. Unfortunately, no proof was presented that the petitioners'
PERFECTO, RAFFY SANTILLAN, BOY ARIADO, predecessors in interest derived title from an old Spanish grant.
LORENZO BROCALES, SALVADOR DOE, and other Petitioners placed much reliance upon decisions of the Court of
DOES, respondents.; 266 SCRA 392; [G.R. No. 95608. First Instance which were not signed by the judge but were
January 21, 1997]; ROMERO, J.
merely certified copies of notification to Diego Palomo bearing
the signature of the clerk of court.
FACTS:

7
Assuming that the decrees of the Court of First Instance were Whether or not forest land may be owned by private
really issued, the lands are still not capable of appropriation. The persons.
adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title in
HELD:
confirmation of imperfect title cases applies only to alienable
The adverse possession which may be the basis of a
lands of the public domain. grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title cases applies only
to alienable lands of the public domain. It is in the law governing
There is no question that the lands in the case at bar were not natural resources that forest land cannot be owned by private
alienable lands of the public domain. As testified by the District persons. It is not registerable and possession thereof, no matter
Forester, records in the Bureau of Forestry show that the subject how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such
lands were never declared as alienable and disposable and lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.
subject to private alienation prior to 1913 up to the present.[16] There is no question that the lots here forming part of the forest
Moreover, as part of the reservation for provincial park purposes, zone were not alienable lands of the public domain. As to the
forfeiture of improvements introduced by petitioners, the fact
they form part of the forest zone.
that the government failed to oppose the registration of the lots in
question is no justification for petitioners to plead good faith in
It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest
introducing improvements on the lots.
land cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registrable and
possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into
private property, unless such lands are reclassified and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. THE HON. COURT
considered disposable and alienable. OF APPEALS, and EMILIO BERNABE, SR., EMILIO
BERNABE, JR., LUZ BERNABE, AMPARO BERNABE,
Neither do the tax receipts which were presented in evidence and ELISA BERNABE; G.R. No. L-40402. March 16, 1987;
prove ownership of the parcels of land inasmuch as the weight of PARAS, J.:
authority is that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of
ownership in land registration cases. FACTS:

PALOMO v. CA Lot No. 622 of the MarivelesCadastre was declared public land
G.R. No. 95608 January 21, 1997 in a decision rendered before the last war. On July 6, 1965, Lot
622 was segregated from the forest zone and released and
FACTS:
certified by the Bureau of Forestry as an agricultural land for
Diego Palomo is the owner of 15 parcels of land
covered by Executive Order No. 40. On 1916, he ordered the disposition under the Public Land Act.On April 26, 1967,
registration of these lands and donated the same to his heirs, Respondents filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan a
Ignacio and Carmen Palomo two months before his death in petition to perfect their rights and register their titles to said lots,
April 1937. having allegedly acquired ownership and possession of said
Claiming that the aforesaid original certificates of title parcels of land by purchase from the original owners thereof,
were lost during the Japanese occupation, Ignacio Palomo filed a whose possession of the same including that of the herein
petition for reconstitution with the Court of First Instance of
Respondents, has always been continuous, open, active,
Albay on May 1970. The Register of Deeds of Albay issued
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3911, 3912, 3913 and 3914 exclusive, public, adverse, and in the concept of owners thereof
sometime in October 1953. Sometime in July 1954 President for more than 30 years. The Acting Provincial Fiscal of Bataan,
Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 47 converting the for and in behalf of the Director of Lands, filed his opposition to
area embraced by Executive Order No. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot the petition alleging that the land is still, in truth and in fact,
Spring National Park," under the control, management, public land and as such cannot be the subject of a land
protection and administration of the defunct Commission of registration proceeding under Act 496.
Parks and Wildlife, now a division of the Bureau of Forest
Development. The area was never released as alienable and
ISSUE: Whether the lots claimed by respondents could legally
disposable portion of the public domain and, therefore, is neither
susceptible to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land be the subject of a judicial confirmation of title under the
Law nor registerable under the Land Registration Act. The aforequoted provisions of the Public Land Act, as amended.
Palomos, however, continued in possession of the property, paid
real estate taxes thereon and introduced improvements by RULING: No.
planting rice, bananas, pandan and coconuts. On April 8, 1971,
petitioner Carmen de Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio Palomo Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141, as amended, applies exclusively
and Trinidad Pascual mortgaged the parcels of land to guarantee to public agricultural land. Forest lands or areas covered with
a loan of P200,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands. forests are excluded. They are incapable of registration and their
inclusion in a title, whether such title be one issued during the
ISSUE: Spanish sovereignty or under the present Torrens system of
registration, nullifies the title. Thus, possession of forest lands,
8
however long, cannot ripen into private. A parcel of forest land is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and
beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to
register under the Torrens System.

Thus, even if the reopening of the cadastral proceedings was at

all possible, private respondents have not qualified for a grant
under Sec. 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, the facts being that
private respondents could only be credited with 1 year, 9 months
and 20 days possession and occupation of the lots involved,
counted from July 6, 1965, the date when the land area in sitio
San Jose, barrio Cabcaban, Mariveles, Bataan, known as Bataan
PMD No. 267, which includes the lots claimed by respondents,
had been segregated from the forest zone and released by the
Bureau of Forestry as an agricultural land for disposition under
the Public Land Act. Consequently, under the above mentioned
jurisprudence, neither private respondents nor their predecessors-
in-interest could have possessed the lots for the requisite period
of thirty (30) years as disposable agricultural land.