GR NO.

171726, February 23, 2011

VICENTE YU CHANG AND SOLEDAD YU CHANG
VS.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Petitioners father L. Yu Chang executed an Agreement to Exchange
Real Property with the Mayor of Pili, Camarines Sur, Justo Casuncad wherein
the former assigned and transferred to the Municipality his 400 meter
residential lot in San Roque, Pili, Camarines Sur in exchange for a 400 meter
land located in San Juan, Pili. The Yu Chang family then took possession of
the property and erected a residential lot and gasoline station. When Yu
Chang died, the property was succeeded and inherited by his wife and
children. The right over the property was however transferred to herein
petitioner by a Deed of Transfer and Renunciation.
Soledad Yu Chang, for herself and in representation of her brother and
co-petitioner, Vicente Yu Chang, filed a petition[12] for registration of title over
the aforementioned lots under the Property Registration Decree. In their
petition, they declared that they are the co-owners of the subject lots; that
they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, physical,
material, exclusive, open, occupation and possession of the above described
parcels of land for more than 100 year; and that allegedly, they have
continuously, peacefully, and adversely possessed the property in the
concept of owners. Hence, they are entitled to confirmation of ownership and
issuance and registration of title in their names. Office of Solicitor General
(OSG) filed an opposition, saying that the land is legally classified as Public
Domain, forest land. Nevertheless, a decision was issued granting the
petitioners application. Republic then appealed to CA claiming that the land
was classified as public forest land; hence, it could not be subject to
appropriation and alienation. CA grant the appeal of Republic hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the property is subject for disposal
HELD:
No. The petition was denied. Under PD 1073, in order that petitioners
application for registration of title may be granted, they must first establish
the following: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and
alienable lands of the public domain and (2) that they have been in open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same

under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
[24]
Applicants must overcome the presumption that the land they are
applying for is part of the public domain and that they have an interest
therein sufficient to warrant registration in their names arising from an
imperfect title.[25]
In the instant case, petitioners did not adduce any evidence to the effect
that the lots subject of their application are alienable and disposable land of
the public domain. Instead, petitioners contend that the subject properties
could no longer be considered and classified as forest land since there are
building structures, residential houses and even government buildings
existing and standing on the area. This, however, is hardly the proof required
under the law.
Moreover, the classification of land is descriptive of its legal nature or status
and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
[27]
Unless and until the land classified as forest land 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.

G.R. No. 133250

July 9, 2002

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner,

vs.
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
On November 20, 1973, the government, through the Commissioner of Public
Highways, signed a contract with the Construction and Development
Corporation of the Philippines ("CDCP" for brevity) to reclaim certain
foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract also included the
construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. CDCP
obligated itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of
the total reclaimed land.
On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA "to reclaim land,
including foreshore and submerged areas," and "to develop, improve,

acquire, x x x lease and sell any and all kinds of lands."1 On the same date,
then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to
PEA the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila
Bay"2 under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project
(MCCRRP).
On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent
No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed
under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP)
containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight
hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, on April 9,
1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque issued Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering
the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the
southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Paraaque City. The
Freedom Islands have a total land area of One Million Five Hundred Seventy
Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One (1,578,441) square meters or
157.841 hectares.
Petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant
violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale
of alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations. On March 30,
1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement. On May
28, 1999, the Office of the President under the administration of then
President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended JVA.
Several motions for reconsideration of the Supreme Courts July 9, 2002
decision
which declared the amended JVA null and void ab initio were filed. The
conclusions of said decision were summarized by the Court as follows: The
157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name 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. PEA may
only sell these lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership
limitations in the 1987 Constitution and existing laws.
The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable
natural resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or
disposable lands open to disposition and declared no longer needed for
public service. The government can make such classification and declaration
only after PEA has reclaimed these submerged areas. Only then can these
lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public domain, which are the only
natural resources the government can alienate. In their present
state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and
outside the commerce of man.

Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,

ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for
being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the
public domain. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI
ownership of 290.156hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than
agricultural lands of the public domain. PEA may reclaim these submerged
areas.
Thereafter, the government can classify there claimed lands as alienable or
disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public service.
Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to
AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987Constitution
which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land
of the public domain.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private corporations can acquire alienable lands of the
public domain
HELD:
No.