Article 525

CASE FACTS  RULING (GO TO THE LAST ISSUE)

TITLE  There are two consolidated petitions.  DOCTRINE: Lack of title does not mean lack of right to possess
 G.R. No. 167707 o Regalian Doctrine and power of the executive to reclassify lands
DENR v  Petiioner: DENR, et.al.; Respondent: Yap, et. al. (claimants) of the public domain
YAP  a petition for review on certiorari of CA decision affirming RTC which o 1935Consticlassified lands ofpublic domain into agri, forestortimber.
granted the petition for declaratory relief filed by respondents- o 1973 Consti: agri, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement,
claimants Mayor Jose Yap, et al. and ordered the survey of Boracay for mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands,
Art. 525. titling purposes.  o 1987 Consti reverted to 1935 Consti + national parks.
The  G.R. No. 173775 o Of these, only agricultural lands may be alienated.
possession  Petitioner: Dr. Sacay, et.al. (claimants); Respondent DENR, et.al. o  Prior to P1064, Boracay had never been classified under any of
of things  a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of these divisions. It was an unclassified land of the public domain.
or rights Proclamation No. 1064 issued by Pres. GMA classifying Boracay into o Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong
may be reserved forest and agricultural land. to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to
had in
ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such
one of
 G.R. No. 167707 patrimony. The doctrine adopted by 1935, 1973, and 1987 Consti.
two
o On April 14, 1976, DENR approved the National o All lands not of privateownership are presumedto belong to theState,
concepts:
Reservation Survey of Boracay Island, which identified o All lands not yet acquired from the govt, either by purchase/grant,
either in
the several lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons. belong to the State as part of inalienable public domain.
concept o On Nov 10, 1978, then Pres Marcos issued Proc. No. 1801 o Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public
of owner, declaring Boracay Island as tourist zones and marine domain will be disposed of for private ownership.
or in that reserves. o Ankron and De Aldecoa did not make the whole of Boracay Island,
of the o Marcos later approved the issuance of PTA Circular 3-82 or portions of it, agricultural lands.
holder of dated Sep 3, 1982, to implement P1801. o Claimants posit that Boracay was already an agricultural land
the thing o Claiming that P1801 and PTAC3-82 precluded them from pursuant to the 2 old cases. When these cases were decided, the
or right to filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title President had no power to classify lands of public domain yet.
keep or or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents Yap, o To aid courts in resolving land registration cases, it was then
enjoy it, Jr., et.al., filed a petition for declaratory relief w/RTC, alleging: necessary to devise a presumption. Thus evolved the dictum
the o P1801 and PTAC3-82 raised doubts on their right to secure in Ankron that courts have a right to presume in each case the lands
ownership titles over their occupied lands. 
pertaining
are agricultural until contrary shown.
o they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, o But not all lands of public domain are presumed automatically
to
had been in open, continuous possession and occupation in reclassified as disposable and alienable agricultural lands.  
another
Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time o The presumption attaches only to cases dealing with judicial and
person.
immemorial.   administrative confirmation of imperfect titles.  It cannot apply to
o P1801 and PTAC3-82 did not place Boracay beyond the landowners, like claimants who failed to avail of benefits of Act926. 
commerce of man. Since the Island was classified as a tourist o As to them, their land remained unclassified and, by virtue of the
zone, it was susceptible of private ownership.
 o Under Section 48(b) of Public Land Act, they had the right to Regalian doctrine, continued to be owned by the State.
have the lots registered in their names through judicial o assumption was not absolute. If there was proof the land was better
confirmation of imperfect titles. suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could adjudge it as a
o OSG opposed the petition for declaratory relief. Boracay was mineral or timber land despite the presumption. 
unclassified land of public domain. o Private claimants continued possession under Act No. 926 does
o RTC: certain parcels of land in Boracay Island, more not create a presumption that the land is alienable. 
particularly Lots 1 and 30, were covered by OCT in the name o claimants contend that their continued possession for the requisite
of Heirs of Tirol.  Titles were issued on Aug 7, 1933. period of 10 years under Act926 ipso facto converted the island into
o RTC: in favour or respondents-claimants; CA: affirmed RTC private ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title in their name.
o it is plain error for claimants to argue that under the Philippine Bill
 G.R. No. 173775 of 1902 and Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession creates legal
 On May 22, 2006, Pres GMA issued Proc. No. 1064 classifying Boracay presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable.
Island into reserved forest land (protection purposes) and agricultural o Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an
land (alienable and disposable).  unclassified land of the public domain prior to P1064. Such are
 The Proclamation likewise provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on considered public forest under PD705. 
each side of the centerline of roads and trails, reserved for right-of- o that the occupants have built beach resorts; island is stripped of its
way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land forest cover; that implementation of P1064 will destroy tourism
protection purposes. industry, do not negate its character as public forest.
 On Aug 10, 2006, Sacay +other landowners in Boracay filed w/SC a o The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does
petition for prohibition, mandamus, & nullification of P1064, alleging: not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. 
o Proclamation infringed on their prior vested rights over o Private claimants cannot rely on P1801 as basis for judicial
portions of Boracay. They have been in continued possession confirmation of imperfect title. The proclamation did not convert
of their respective lots since time immemorial.  Boracay into an agricultural land. 
o They have also invested billions of pesos in developing their o claimants argue that P1801 classified Boracay as a tourist zone.  As a
lands and building first class resorts on their lots tourist spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership.
o there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into o The Whereas clauses of P1801 also explain the rationale behind the
agricultural land.  declaration of Boracay Island as a tourist zone. It is aimed at
o Being classified as neither mineral nor timber land, the island administering the islands for tourism and ecological purposes. It
is deemed agricultural pursuant to the first Public Land Act. does not address the areas alienability.
o their possession in the concept of owner for the required o P1064 does not violate the CARL.
period entitled them to judicial confirmation of imperfect o CARL bars conversion of public forests into agricultural
title. lands. Claimants say that since Boracay is a public forest under
 Opposing the petition, the OSG argued petitioners do not have a vested PD705, Pres GMA can no longer convert it into an agricultural land
right over their occupied portions in the island.  o prohibition under CARL applies only to a reclassification of land. If
o Boracay is an unclassified public forest land pursuant to the land had never been previously classified, like Boracay, there can
Sec3(a) of PD705.  be no prohibited reclassification under the agrarian law. 
 On Nov 21, 2006, SC ordered consolidation of the 2 petitions as they o Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial
 involve the same issues on the land classification of Boracay Island confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141. Neither do they
ISSUE: have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law. 
I included the other issues just in case Atty. Heli asks but the last o There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or
issue is the only important issue. incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:
W/N lack of title means lack of right to posses. NO o (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;
1. The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 167707 is GRANTED  o (2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable
  land of the public domain
2. The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 173775 is DISMISSED  o Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No. 926, and P1801 did not convert
portions of Boracay  into agricultural. The island remained
unclassified land of the public domain and, applying the Regalian
doctrine, is considered State property.
o claimants bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, must fail
because of the absence of the second element
o  Their entitlement to a government grant under Public Land Act
presupposes that the land possessed and applied for is already
alienable and disposable. 
o If land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no
matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights
o Neither may claimants apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title under P1064, with respect to lands classified as agricultural
o claimants failed to prove the first element of continuous possession
since June 12, 1945.
o Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess.
o While claimants may not be eligible to apply for judicial confirmation
of imperfect title, this does not denote their automatic ouster from
the residential, commercial, and other areas they possess now
classified as agricultural. 
o Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial investments on
their occupied alienable lands. Lack of title does not necessarily
mean lack of right to possess.
o those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of
improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their
possession. 
o For another, they may look into other modes of applying for original
 registration of title, such as by homesteador sales patent, subject to
the conditions imposed by law.
o Congress may enact a law to entitle private claimants to acquire title
to their occupied lots