TodayisMonday,November28,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.192896July24,2013
DREAMVILLAGENEIGHBORHOODASSOCIATION,INC.,representedbyitsIncumbentPresident,GREG
SERIEGO,Petitioner,
vs.
BASESDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,Respondent.
DECISION
REYES,J.:
BeforeusonPetitionforReview1underRule45oftheRulesofCourtistheDecision2datedSeptember10,2009
andResolution3datedJuly13,2010oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.85228nullifyingandsetting
aside for lack of jurisdiction the Resolution4 dated April 28, 2004 of the Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems (COSLAP) in COS LAP Case No. 99500. The fallo of the assailed COS LAP Resolution reads, as
follows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
1. Declaring the subject property, covering an area of 78,466 square meters, now being occupied by the
members of the Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. to be outside of Swo000001302 BCDA
property.
2. In accordance with the tenets of social justice, members of said association are advised to apply for
salespatentontheirrespectiveoccupiedlotswiththeLandManagementBureau,DENRNCR,pursuantto
R.A.Nos.274and730.
3. Directing the Land Management BureauDENRNCR to process the sales patent application of
complainantspursuanttoexistinglawsandregulation.
4.Thepeacefulpossessionofactualoccupantsberespectedbytherespondents.
SOORDERED.5
AntecedentFacts
Petitioner Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Dream Village) claims to represent more than 2,000
familieswhohavebeenoccupyinga78,466squaremeterlotinWesternBicutan,TaguigCitysince1985"inthe
concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously."6 The lot used to be part of the Hacienda de
Maricaban (Maricaban), owned by Dolores Casal y Ochoa and registered under a Torrens title,7 Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 291, issued on October 17, 1906 by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.8 Maricaban
coveredseveralparcelsoflandwithatotalareaofover2,544hectaresspreadoutoverMakati,Pasig,Taguig,
Pasay,andParaaque.9
Following the purchase of Maricaban by the government of the United States of America (USA) early in the
Americancolonialperiod,tobeconvertedintothemilitaryreservationknownasFortWilliamMckinley,Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 192 was issued in the name of the USA to cancel OCT No. 291.10 The US
governmentlatertransferred30has.ofMaricabantotheManilaRailroadCompany,forwhichTCTNo.192was
cancelledbyTCTNos.1218and1219,thefirstinthenameoftheManilaRailroadCompanyfor30has.,andthe
secondinthenameoftheUSAfortherestoftheMaricabanproperty.11

On January 29, 1914, TCT No. 1219 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 1688, and later that year, on
September15,1914,TCTNo.1688wascancelledandreplacedbyTCTNo.2288,bothtimesinthenameofthe
USA.12 On December 6, 1956, the USA formally ceded Fort William Mckinley to the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic),andonSeptember11,1958,TCTNo.2288wascancelledandreplacedbyTCTNo.61524,thistime
in the name of the Republic.13 On July 12, 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423
withdrawingfromsaleorsettlementthetractsoflandwithinFortWilliamMckinley,nowrenamedFortBonifacio,
andreservingthemformilitarypurposes.14
OnJanuary7,1986,PresidentFerdinandE.MarcosissuedProclamationNo.2476declaringcertainportionsof
FortBonifacioalienableanddisposable15inthemannerprovidedunderRepublicAct(R.A.)Nos.274and730,in
relation to the Public Land Act,16 thus allowing the sale to the settlers of home lots in Upper Bicutan, Lower
Bicutan,SignalVillage,andWesternBicutan.17
On October 16, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172 amending Proclamation No.
2476 by limiting to Lots 1 and 2 of the survey Swo13000298 the areas in Western Bicutan open for
disposition.18
On March 13, 1992, R.A. No. 7227 was passed19 creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority
(BCDA) to oversee and accelerate the conversion of Clark and Subic military reservations and their extension
camps(JohnHayStation,WallaceAirStation,ODonnellTransmitterStation,SanMiguelNavalCommunications
StationandCapasRelayStation)toproductivecivilianuses.Section820ofthesaidlawprovidesthatthecapital
oftheBCDAwillbeprovidedfromsalesproceedsortransfersoflotsinnine(9)militarycampsinMetroManila,
including723has.ofFortBonifacio.Thelaw,thus,expresslyauthorizedthePresidentofthePhilippines"tosell
the above lands, in whole or in part, which are hereby declared alienable and disposable pursuant to the
provisions of existing laws and regulations governing sales of government properties,"21 specifically to raise
capitalfortheBCDA.TitlestothecampsweretransferredtotheBCDAforthispurpose,22andTCTNo.61524
wascancelledonJanuary3,1995byTCTNos.23888,23887,23886,22460,23889,23890,and23891,nowin
thenameoftheBCDA.23
Excepted from disposition by the BCDA are: a) approximately 148.80 has. reserved for the National Capital
Region (NCR) Security Brigade, Philippine Army officers housing area, and Philippine National Police jails and
supportservices(presentlyknownasCampBagongDiwa)b)approximately99.91has.inVillamorAirBasefor
thePresidentialAirliftWing,onesquadronofhelicoptersfortheNCRandrespectivesecurityunitsc)twentyone
(21)areassegregatedbyvariouspresidentialproclamationsandd)aproposed30.15has.asrelocationsitefor
families to be affected by the construction of Circumferential Road 5 and Radial Road 4, provided that the
boundariesandtechnicaldescriptionoftheseexemptareasshallbedeterminedbyanactualgroundsurvey.24
Now charging the BCDA of wrongfully asserting title to Dream Village and unlawfully subjecting its members to
summary demolition, resulting in unrest and tensions among the residents,25 on November 22, 1999, the latter
filedalettercomplaintwiththeCOSLAPtoseekitsassistanceintheverificationsurveyofthesubject78,466sq
mproperty,whichtheyclaimediswithinLot1ofSwo13000298andthusiscoveredbyProclamationNo.172.
Theyclaimthattheyhavebeenoccupyingtheareaforthirty(30)years"intheconceptofownerscontinuously,
exclusively and notoriously for several years," and have built their houses of sturdy materials thereon and
introducedpavedroads,drainageandrecreationalandreligiousfacilities.DreamVillage,thus,assertsthatthelot
is not among those transferred to the BCDA under R.A. No. 7227, and therefore patent applications by the
occupantsshouldbeprocessedbytheLandManagementBureau(LMB).
On August 15, 2000, Dream Village formalized its complaint by filing an Amended Petition26 in the COSLAP.
Amongthereliefsitsoughtwere:
d.DECLARINGthesubjectpropertyasalienableanddisposablebyvirtueofapplicablelaws
e. Declaring the portion of Lot 1 of subdivision Plan SWO13000298, situated in the barrio of Western
Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila, which is presently being occupied by herein petitioner as within the
coverage of Proclamation Nos. 2476 and 172 and outside the claim of AFPRSBS INDUSTRIAL PARK
COMPLEXand/orBASESCONVESIONDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY.
f.ORDERINGtheLandManagementBureautoprocesstheapplicationoftheASSOCIATIONmembersfor
the purchase of their respective lots under the provisions of Acts Nos. 274 and 730. (Underscoring
supplied)
RespondentBCDAinitsAnswer28datedNovember23,2000questionedthejurisdictionoftheCOSLAPtohear
DreamVillagescomplaint,whileassertingitstitletothesubjectpropertypursuanttoR.A.No.7227.Itarguedthat
under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 561 which created the COSLAP, its task is merely to coordinate the various

governmentofficesandagenciesinvolvedinthesettlementoflandproblemsordisputes,addingthatBCDAdoes
not fall in the enumeration in Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, it being neither a pasturelandlease holder, a timber
concessionaire, or a government reservation grantee, but the holder of patrimonial government property which
cannotbethesubjectofapetitionforclassification,releaseorsubdivisionbytheoccupantsofDreamVillage.
InitsResolution29datedApril28,2004,theCOSLAPnarratedthatitcalledamediationconferenceonMarch22,
2001, during which the parties agreed to have a relocation/verification survey conducted of the subject lot. On
April4,2001,theCOSLAPwrotetotheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)Community
Environment and Natural Resources OfficeNCR requesting the survey, which would also include Swo00
0001302,coveringtheadjacentAFPRSBSIndustrialParkestablishedbyProclamationNo.1218onMay8,1998
aswellastheabandonedCircumferentialRoad5(C5Road).30
On April 1, 2004, the COSLAP received the final report of the verification survey and a blueprint copy of the
surveyplanfromAtty.RizaldyBarcelo,RegionalTechnicalDirectorforLandsofDENR.Specifically,ItemNo.3of
theDENRreportstates:
3.Lot1,Swo000298isinsideProclamation172.DreamVillageNeighborhoodAssociation,Inc.isoutsideLot1,
Swo13000298andinsideLot10,11&PortionofLot13,Swo000001302withanactualareaof78,466square
meters. Likewise, the area actually is outside Swo000001302 of BCDA.31 (Emphasis ours and underscoring
supplied)
COSLAPRuling
On the basis of the DENRs verification survey report, the COSLAP resolved that Dream Village lies outside of
BCDA, and particularly, outside of Swo000001302, and thus directed the LMB of the DENR to process the
applicationsofDreamVillagesmembersforsalespatent,notingthatinviewofthelengthoftimethatthey"have
beenopenly,continuouslyandnotoriouslyoccupyingthesubjectpropertyintheconceptofanowner,xxxthey
are qualified to apply for sales patent on their respective occupied lots pursuant to R.A. Nos. 274 and 730 in
relationtotheprovisionsofthePublicLandAct."32
Onthequestionofitsjurisdictionoverthecomplaint,theCOSLAPcitedthelikelihoodthatthesummaryeviction
bytheBCDAofmorethan2,000familiesinDreamVillagecouldstirupserioussocialunrest,andmaintainedthat
Section3(2)ofE.O.No.561authorizesitto"assumejurisdictionandresolvelandproblemsordisputeswhichare
critical and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of parties involved, the presence or
emergence of social tension or unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action," even as
Section 3(2)(d) of E.O. No. 561 also allows it to take cognizance of "petitions for classification, release and/or
subdivisionoflandsofthepublicdomain,"exactlytheultimatereliefsoughtbyDreamVillage.Rationalizingthatit
wascreatedpreciselytoprovideamoreeffectivemechanismfortheexpeditioussettlementoflandproblems"in
general,"theCOSLAPinvokedasitsauthoritythe1990caseofBaagav.COSLAP,33wherethisCourtsaid:
ItistruethatExecutiveOrderNo.561providesthattheCOSLAPmaytakecognizanceofcaseswhichare"critical
and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of parties involved, the presence or
emergenceofsocialtensionorunrest,orothersimilarcriticalsituationsrequiringimmediateaction."However,the
useoftheword"may"doesnotmeanthattheCOSLAPsjurisdictionismerelyconfinedtotheabovementioned
cases. The provisions of the said Executive Order are clear that the COSLAP was created as a means of
providing a more effective mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems in general, which are
frequentlythesourceofconflictsamongsettlers,landownersandculturalminorities.Besides,theCOSLAPmerely
took over from the abolished PACLAP whose functions, including its jurisdiction, power and authority to act on,
decideandresolvelanddisputes(Sec.2,P.D.No.832)wereallassumedbyit.ThesaidExecutiveOrderNo.561
containingsaidprovision,beingenactedonlyonSeptember21,1979,cannotaffecttheexerciseofjurisdictionof
thePACLAPProvincialCommitteeofKoronadalonSeptember20,1978.Neithercanitaffectthedecisionofthe
COSLAPwhichmerelyaffirmedsaidexerciseofjurisdiction.34
InitsMotionforReconsideration35filedonMay20,2004,theBCDAquestionedthevalidityofthesurveyresults
sinceitwasconductedwithoutitsrepresentativespresent,atthesametimedenyingthatitreceivedanotification
oftheDENRverificationsurvey.36ItmaintainedthatthereisnobasisfortheCOSLAPsfindingthatthemembers
ofDreamVillagewereinopen,continuous,andadversepossessionintheconceptofowner,becausenotonlyis
the property not among those declared alienable and disposable, but it is a titled patrimonial property of the
State.37
IntheOrder38datedJune17,2004,theCOSLAPdeniedBCDAsMotionforReconsideration,insistingthatithad
duenoticeoftheverificationsurvey,whilealsonotingthatalthoughtheBCDAwantedtopostponetheverification
surveyduetoitstightschedule,itactuallystalledthesurveywhenitfailedtosuggestanalternativesurveydateto
ensureitspresence.

CARuling
OnPetitionforReview39totheCA,theBCDAarguedthatthedisputeisoutsidethejurisdictionoftheCOSLAP
because of the lands history of private ownership and because it is registered under an indefeasible Torrens
title40 that Proclamation No. 172 covers only Lots 1 and 2 of Swo13000298 in Western Bicutan, whereas
DreamVillageoccupiesLots10,11andpartof13ofSwo000001302,whichalsobelongstotheBCDA 41that
the COSLAP resolution is based on an erroneous DENR report stating that Dream Village is outside of BCDA,
because Lots 10, 11, and portion of Lot 13 of Swo000001302 are within the DA42 that the COSLAP was not
justified in ignoring BCDAs request to postpone the survey to the succeeding year because the presence of its
representativesinsuchanimportantverificationsurveywasindispensablefortheimpartialityofthesurveyaimed
at resolving a highly volatile situation43 that the COSLAP is a mere coordinating administrative agency with
limitedjurisdiction44and,thatthepresentcaseisnotamongthoseenumeratedinSection3ofE.O.No.56145.
The COSLAP, on the other hand, maintained that Section 3(2)(e) of E.O. No. 561 provides that it may assume
jurisdiction and resolve land problems or disputes in "other similar land problems of grave urgency and
magnitude,"46andthepresentcaseisonesuchproblem.
TheCAinitsDecision47datedSeptember10,2009ruledthattheCOSLAPhasnojurisdictionoverthecomplaint
because the question of whether Dream Village is within the areas declared as available for disposition in
Proclamation No. 172 is beyond its competence to determine, even as the land in dispute has been under a
privatetitlesince1906,andpresentlyitstitleisheldbyagovernmentagency,theBCDA,incontrasttothecaseof
BaagarelieduponbyDreamVillage,wherethedisputedlandwaspartofthepublicdomainandthedisputants
wereapplicantsforsalespatentthereto.
DreamVillagesmotionforreconsiderationwasdeniedintheappellatecourtsOrder48ofJuly13,2010.
PetitionforReviewintheSupremeCourt
OnpetitionforreviewoncertioraritothisCourt,DreamVillageinterposesthefollowingissues:
A
IN ANNULLING THE RESOLUTION OF COSLAP IN COSLAP CASE NO. 99500, THE HONORABLE CA
DECIDED THE CASE IN A MANNER NOT CONSISTENT WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS
HONORABLECOURT
B
THEHONORABLECAERREDINRULINGTHATCOSLAPHADNOJURISDICTIONOVERTHECONTROVERSY
BETWEENTHEPARTIESHEREIN.49
TheCourtsRuling
Wefindnomeritinthepetition.
TheBCDAholdstitletoFortBonifacio.
ThattheBCDAhastitletoFortBonifaciohaslongbeendecidedwithfinality.InSamahanngMasangPilipinosa
Makati,Inc.v.BCDA,50itwascategoricallyruledasfollows:
First, it is unequivocal that the Philippine Government, and now the BCDA, has title and ownership over Fort
Bonifacio. The case of Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City, Pasig and Makati is final and
conclusiveontheownershipofthethenHaciendadeMaricabanestatebytheRepublicofthePhilippines.Clearly,
theissueontheownershipofthesubjectlandsinFortBonifacioislaidtorest.OtherthantheirviewthattheUSA
isstilltheownerofthesubjectlots,petitionerhasnotputforwardanyclaimofownershiporinterestinthem.51
The facts in Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati are essentially not much different from the controversy
below. There, 20,000 families were longtime residents occupying 98 has. of Fort Bonifacio in Makati City, who
vainlysoughttoaverttheirevictionandthedemolitionoftheirhousesbytheBCDAuponaclaimthatthelandwas
ownedbytheUSAunderTCTNo.2288.TheSupremeCourtfoundthatTCTNo.2288hadinfactbeencancelled
byTCTNo.61524inthenameoftheRepublic,whichtitlewasinturncancelledonJanuary3,1995byTCTNos.
23888,23887,23886,22460,23889,23890,and23891,allinthenameoftheBCDA.TheCourtruledthatthe
BCDAsaforesaidtitlesoverFortBonifacioarevalid,indefeasibleandbeyondquestion,sinceTCTNo.61524was
cancelled in favor of BCDA pursuant to an explicit authority under R.A. No. 7227, the legal basis for BCDAs
takeoverandmanagementofthesubjectlots.52

DreamVillagesitsonthe
abandonedC5Road,whichlies
outsidetheareadeclaredin
ProclamationNos.2476and172as
alienableanddisposable.
PursuanttoProclamationNo.2476,thefollowingsurveyswereconductedbytheBureauofLandstodelimitthe
boundariesoftheareasexcludedfromthecoverageofProclamationNo.423:
BarangaySurveyPlanDateApproved
1.LowerBicutanSWO13000253October21,1986
2.SignalVillageSWO13000258May13,1986
3.UpperBicutanSWO13000258May13,1986
4.WesternBicutanSWO13000298January15,198753
However,thesurveyplanforWesternBicutan,Swo13000298,showsthatLots3,4,5and6thereofareinside
theareasegregatedfortheLibinganngmgaBayaniunderProclamationNo.208,whichthenleavesonlyLots1
and 2 of Swo13000298 as available for disposition. For this reason, it was necessary to amend Proclamation
No. 2476. Thus, in Proclamation No. 172 only Lots 1 and 2 of Swo13000298 are declared alienable and
disposable.54
The DENR verification survey report states that Dream Village is not situated in Lot 1 of Swo13000298 but
actuallyoccupiesLots10,11andpartof13ofSwo000001302:"xxxDreamVillageisoutsideLot1,SWO13
000298andinsideLot10,11&portionofLot13,SWO000001302withanactualareaof78466squaremeters.
The area is actually is [sic] outside SWO000001302 of BCDA."55 Inexplicably and gratuitously, the DENR also
states that the area is outside of BCDA, completely oblivious that the BCDA holds title over the entire Fort
Bonifacio, even as the BCDA asserts that Lots 10, 11 and 13 of SWO000001302 are part of the abandoned
rightofwayofC5Road.ThisareaisdescribedaslyingnorthofLot1ofSwo13000298andofLots3,4,5and
6 of Swo13000298 (Western Bicutan) inside the Libingan ng mga Bayani, and the boundary line of Lot 1
mentioned as C5 Road is really the proposed alignment of C5 Road, which was abandoned when, as
constructed,itwasmadetotraversenorthwardintotheLibinganngmgaBayani.DreamVillagehasnotdisputed
thisassertion.
The mere fact that the original plan for C5 Road to cross Swo000001302 was abandoned by deviating it
northward to traverse the southern part of Libingan ng mga Bayani does not signify abandonment by the
governmentofthebypassedlots,northattheselotswouldthenbecomealienableanddisposable.Theyremain
underthetitleoftheBCDA,evenasitissignificantthatunderSection8(d)ofR.A.No.7227,arelocationsiteof
30.5has.wastobereservedforfamiliesaffectedbytheconstructionofC5Road.ItisnowhereclaimedthatLots
10,11and13ofSwo000001302arepartofthesaidrelocationsite.TheselotsborderC5Roadinthesouth,56
making them commercially valuable to BCDA, a farther argument against a claim that the government has
abandonedthemtoDreamVillage.
WhilepropertyoftheStateorany
ofitssubdivisionspatrimonialin
charactermaybetheobjectof
prescription,those"intendedfor
somepublicserviceorforthe
developmentofthenational
wealth"areconsideredpropertyof
publicdominionandthereforenot
susceptibletoacquisitionby
prescription.
Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that "property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in
charactershallnotbetheobjectofprescription."Articles420and421identifywhatispropertyofpublicdominion
andwhatispatrimonialproperty:
Art.420.Thefollowingthingsarepropertyofpublicdominion:
(1)Thoseintendedforpublicuse,suchasroads,canals,rivers,torrents,portsandbridgesconstructedby
theState,banks,shores,roadsteads,andothersofsimilarcharacter

(2)ThosewhichbelongtotheState,withoutbeingforpublicuse,andareintendedforsomepublicservice
orforthedevelopmentofthenationalwealth.
Art.421.AllotherpropertyoftheState,whichisnotofthecharacterstatedintheprecedingarticle,ispatrimonial
property.
One question laid before us is whether the area occupied by Dream Village is susceptible of acquisition by
prescription.InHeirsofMarioMalabananv.Republic,57itwaspointedoutthatfromthemomentR.A.No.7227
wasenacted,thesubjectmilitarylandsinMetroManila
became alienable and disposable. However, it was also clarified that the said lands did not thereby become
patrimonial,sincetheBCDAlawmakestheexpressreservationthattheyaretobesoldinordertoraisefundsfor
theconversionoftheformerAmericanbasesinClarkandSubic.TheCourtnotedthatthepurposeofthelawcan
be tied to either "public service" or "the development of national wealth" under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code,
such that the lands remain property of the public dominion, albeit their status is now alienable and disposable.
TheCourtthenexplainedthatitisonlyupontheirsaletoaprivatepersonorentityasauthorizedbytheBCDAlaw
thattheybecomeprivatepropertyandceasetobepropertyofthepublicdominion:58
ForaslongasthepropertybelongstotheState,althoughalreadyclassifiedasalienableordisposable,itremains
property of the public dominion if when it is "intended for some public service or for the development of the
nationalwealth."59
Thus, under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become patrimonial property only if there is a
declaration that these are alienable or disposable, together with an express government manifestation that the
propertyisalreadypatrimonialornolongerretainedforpublicserviceorthedevelopmentofnationalwealth.Only
whenthepropertyhasbecomepatrimonialcantheprescriptiveperiodfortheacquisitionofpropertyofthepublic
dominionbegintorun.AlsounderSection14(2)ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.1529,itisprovidedthatbefore
acquisitive prescription can commence, the property sought to be registered must not only be classified as
alienableanddisposable,itmustalsobeexpresslydeclaredbytheStatethatitisnolongerintendedforpublic
service or the development of the national wealth, or that the property has been converted into patrimonial.
AbsentsuchanexpressdeclarationbytheState,thelandremainstobepropertyofpublicdominion.60
Since the issuance of Proclamation No. 423 in 1957, vast portions of the former Maricaban have been legally
disposed to settlers, besides those segregated for public or government use. Proclamation No. 1217 (1973)
established the Maharlika Village in Bicutan, Taguig to serve the needs of resident Muslims of Metro Manila
Proclamation No. 2476 (1986), as amended by Proclamation No. 172 (1987), declared more than 400 has. of
Maricaban in Upper and Lower Bicutan, Signal Village, and Western Bicutan as alienable and disposable
Proclamation No. 518 (1990) formally exempted from Proclamation No. 423 the Barangays of Cembo, South
Cembo,WestRembo,EastRembo,Comembo,PemboandPitogo,comprising314has.,anddeclaredthemopen
fordisposition.
The above proclamations notwithstanding, Fort Bonifacio remains property of public dominion of the State,
becausealthoughdeclaredalienableanddisposable,itisreservedforsomepublicserviceorforthedevelopment
ofthenationalwealth,inthiscase,fortheconversionofmilitaryreservationsinthecountrytoproductivecivilian
uses.61Needlesstosay,theacquisitiveprescriptionassertedbyDreamVillagehasnotevenbeguntorun.
Ownershipofalandregistered
underaTorrenstitlecannotbelost
byprescriptionoradverse
possession.
DreamVillagehasbeenunabletodisputeBCDAsclaimthatLots10,11andpartof13ofSwo000001302are
theabandonedrightofwayofC5Road,whichiswithinthevasttitledterritoryofFortBonifacio.Wehavealready
established that these lots have not been declared alienable and disposable under Proclamation Nos. 2476 or
172.
Moreover, it is a settled rule that lands under a Torrens title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.62Section47ofP.D.No.1529,thePropertyRegistrationDecree,expresslyprovidesthatnotitleto
registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. And, although the registered landowner may still lose his right to recover the possession of his
registeredpropertybyreasonoflaches,63nowherehasDreamVillageallegedorprovedlaches,whichhasbeen
defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other
circumstancescausingprejudicetoanadverseparty,aswilloperateasabarinequity.Putanyway,itisadelay
intheassertionofarightwhichworksdisadvantagetoanotherbecauseoftheinequityfoundedonsomechange

intheconditionorrelationsofthepropertyorparties.Itisbasedonpublicpolicywhich,forthepeaceofsociety,
ordainsthatreliefwillbedeniedtoastaledemandwhichotherwisecouldbeavalidclaim.64
Thesubjectpropertyhavingbeen
expresslyreservedforaspecific
publicpurpose,theCOSLAP
cannotexercisejurisdictionoverthe
complaintoftheDreamVillage
settlers.
BCDA has repeatedly asserted that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction to hear Dream Villages complaint.
Concurring,theCAhasruledthatquestionsastothephysicalidentityofDreamVillageandwhetheritliesinLots
10, 11 and 13 of Swo000001302, or whether Proclamation No. 172 has released the disputed area for
dispositionareissueswhichare"manifestlybeyondthescopeoftheCOSLAPsjurisdictionvisvisParagraph2,
Section3ofE.O.No.561,"65renderingitsResolutionapatentnullityanditspronouncementsvoid.Thus,theCA
said,underSection3ofE.O.No.561,theCOSLAPsdutywouldhavebeentorefertheconflicttoanothertribunal
oragencyofgovernmentinviewoftheseriousramificationsofthedisputedclaims:
Infine,itisapparentthattheCOSLAPactedoutsideitsjurisdictionintakingcognizanceofthecase.Itwouldhave
been more prudent if the COSLAP has [sic] just referred the controversy to the proper forum in order to fully
thresh out the ramifications of the dispute at bar. As it is, the impugned Resolution is a patent nullity since the
tribunal which rendered it lacks jurisdiction. Thus, the pronouncements contained therein are void. "We have
consistentlyruledthatajudgmentforwantofjurisdictionisnojudgmentatall.Itcannotbethesourceofanyright
orthecreatorofanyobligation.Allactsperformedpursuanttoitandallclaimsemanatingfromithavenolegal
effect."66(Citationomitted)
WeaddthatFortBonifaciohasbeenreservedforadeclaredspecificpublicpurposeunderR.A.No.7227,which
unfortunatelyforDreamVillagedoesnotencompassthepresentdemandsofitsmembers.Indeed,thispurpose
wastheveryreasonwhytitletoFortBonifaciohasbeentransferredtotheBCDA,anditisthisverypurposewhich
takesthedisputeoutofthedirectjurisdictionoftheCOSLAP.AreviewofthehistoryoftheCOSLAPwillreadily
clarify that its jurisdiction is limited to disputes over public lands not reserved or declared for a public use or
purpose.
On July 31, 1970, President Marcos issued E.O. No. 251 creating the Presidential Action Committee on Land
Problems (PACLAP) to expedite and coordinate the investigation and resolution of all kinds of land disputes
betweensettlers,streamlineandshortenadministrativeprocedures,adoptboldanddecisivemeasurestosolve
land problems, or recommend other solutions.67 E.O. No. 305, issued on March 19, 1971, reconstituted the
PACLAP and gave it exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving public lands and other lands of the public
domain,68 as well as adjudicatory powers phrased in broad terms: "To investigate, coordinate, and resolve
expeditiously land disputes, streamline administrative proceedings, and, in general, to adopt bold and decisive
measurestosolveproblemsinvolvingpubliclandsandlandsofthepublicdomain."69
OnNovember27,1975,P.D.No.832reorganizedthePACLAPandenlargeditsfunctionsandduties.Section2
thereofevengranteditquasijudicialfunctions,towit:
Sec.2.FunctionsanddutiesofthePACLAP.ThePACLAPshallhavethefollowingfunctionsandduties:
1. Direct and coordinate the activities, particularly the investigation work, of the various government
agenciesandagenciesinvolvedinlandproblemsordisputes,andstreamlineadministrativeproceduresto
relieve small settlers and landholders and members of cultural minorities of the expense and time
consumingdelayattendanttothesolutionofsuchproblemsordisputes
2.ReferforimmediateactionanylandproblemordisputebroughttotheattentionofthePACLAP,toany
member agency having jurisdiction thereof: Provided, That when the Executive Committee decides to act
on a case, its resolution, order or decision thereon shall have the force and effect of a regular
administrativeresolution,orderordecision,andshallbebindinguponthepartiesthereininvolvedandupon
thememberagencyhavingjurisdictionthereof
xxxx
4. Evolve and implement a system of procedure for the speedy investigation and resolution of land disputes or
problemsatprovinciallevel,ifpossible.(Underscoringsupplied)
On September 21, 1979, E.O. No. 561 abolished the PACLAP and created the COSLAP to be a more effective
administrativebodytoprovideamechanismfortheexpeditioussettlementoflandproblemsamongsmallsettlers,

landowners and members of the cultural minorities to avoid social unrest.70 Paragraph 2, Section 3 of E.O No.
561nowspecificallyenumeratestheinstanceswhentheCOSLAPcanexerciseitsadjudicatoryfunctions:
Sec.3.PowersandFunctions.TheCommissionshallhavethefollowingpowersandfunctions:
1. Coordinate the activities, particularly the investigation work, of the various government offices and
agenciesinvolvedinthesettlementoflandproblemsordisputes,andstreamlineadministrativeprocedures
to relieve small settlers and landholders and members of cultural minorities of the expense and time
consumingdelayattendanttothesolutionofsuchproblemsordisputes
2.Referandfollowupforimmediateactionbytheagencyhavingappropriatejurisdictionanylandproblem
ordisputereferredtotheCommission:Provided,ThattheCommissionmay,inthefollowingcases,assume
jurisdictionandresolvelandproblemsordisputeswhicharecriticalandexplosiveinnatureconsidering,for
instance,thelargenumberofthepartiesinvolved,thepresenceoremergenceofsocialtensionorunrest,
orothersimilarcriticalsituationsrequiringimmediateaction:
(a)Betweenoccupants/squattersandpastureleaseagreementholdersortimberconcessionaires
(b)Betweenoccupants/squattersandgovernmentreservationgrantees
(c)Betweenoccupants/squattersandpubliclandclaimantsorapplicants
(d)Petitionsforclassification,releaseand/orsubdivisionoflandsofthepublicdomainand
(e)Othersimilarlandproblemsofgraveurgencyandmagnitude.
xxxx
CitingtheconstantthreatofsummaryevictionanddemolitionbytheBCDAandtheseriousnessandurgencyof
the reliefs sought in its Amended Petition, Dream Village insists that the COSLAP was justified in assuming
jurisdictionofCOSLAPCaseNo.99500.ButinLonginov.Atty.General,71itwasheldthatasanadministrative
agency,COSLAPsjurisdictionislimitedtocasesspecificallymentionedinitsenablingstatute,E.O.No.561.The
SupremeCourtsaid:
Administrativeagencies,liketheCOSLAP,aretribunalsoflimitedjurisdictionand,assuch,couldwieldonlysuch
asarespecificallygrantedtothembytheenablingstatutes.xxx.
xxxx
Underthelaw,E.O.No.561,theCOSLAPhastwooptionsinactingonalanddisputeorproblemlodgedbeforeit,
namely,(a)referthemattertotheagencyhavingappropriatejurisdictionforsettlement/resolutionor(b)assume
jurisdictionifthematterisoneofthoseenumeratedinparagraph2(a)to(e)ofthelaw,ifsuchcaseiscriticaland
explosiveinnature,takingintoaccountthelargenumberofthepartiesinvolved,thepresenceoremergenceof
social tension or unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to
assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP has to
consider the nature or classification of the land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions
raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons and damage or
destruction to property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.72
(Citationomitted)
The Longino ruling has been consistently cited in subsequent COSLAP cases, among them Davao New Town
DevelopmentCorp.v.COSLAP,73Barrancov.COSLAP,74NHAv.COSLAP,75Cayabyabv.deAquino,76Ga,Jr.v.
Tubungan,77Machadov.Gatdula,78andVda.deHerrerav.Bernardo.79
Thus, in Machado, it was held that the COSLAP cannot invoke Section 3(2)(e) of E.O. No. 561 to assume
jurisdiction over "other similar land problems of grave urgency," since the statutory construction principle of
ejusdemgenerisprescribesthatwheregeneralwordsfollowanenumerationofpersonsorthings,bywordsofa
particularandspecificmeaning,suchgeneralwordsarenottobeconstruedintheirwidestextentbutaretobe
heldasapplyingonlytopersonsorthingsofthesamekindasthosespecificallymentioned.80Followingthisrule,
COSLAPs jurisdiction is limited to disputes involving lands in which the government has a proprietary or
regulatoryinterest,81orpubliclandscoveredwithaspecificlicensefromthegovernmentsuchasapasturelease
agreements, a timber concessions, or a reservation grants,82 and where moreover, the dispute is between
occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders or timber concessionaires between
occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees and between occupants/squatters and public land
claimantsorapplicants.

InLongino,thepartiescompetedtoleaseapropertyofthePhilippineNationalRailways.Thehighcourtrejected
COSLAPs jurisdiction, noting that the disputed lot is not public land, and neither party was a squatter, patent
leaseagreementholder,governmentreservationgrantee,publiclandclaimantoroccupant,oramemberofany
culturalminority,norwasthedisputecriticalandexplosiveinnaturesoastogeneratesocialtensionorunrest,or
acriticalsituationwhichrequiredimmediateaction.83
In Davao New Town Development Corp., it was held that the COSLAP has no concurrent jurisdiction with the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in respect of disputes concerning the implementation of agrarian reform
laws,since"thegrantofexclusiveandprimaryjurisdictionoveragrarianreformmattersontheDARimpliesthat
no other court, tribunal, or agency is authorized to resolve disputes properly cognizable by the DAR."84 Thus,
insteadofhearingandresolvingthecase,COSLAPshouldhavesimplyreferredprivaterespondentscomplaintto
theDARorDARAB.AccordingtotheCourt:
The abovementioned proviso Section (3)(2) of E.O. No. 561, which vests COSLAP the power to resolve land
disputes,doesnotconferuponCOSLAPblanketauthoritytoassumeeverymatterreferredtoit.Itsjurisdictionis
confinedonlytodisputesoverlandsinwhichthegovernmenthasproprietaryorregulatoryinterest.Moreover,the
landdisputeinBaagainvolvedpartieswithconflictingfreepatentapplicationswhichwaswithintheauthorityof
PACLAPtoresolve,unlikethatoftheinstantcasewhichisexclusivelycognizablebytheDAR.85
InBarranco,COSLAPissuedawrittodemolishstructuresencroachingintoprivateproperty. TheSupremecourt
ruledthatCOSLAPmayresolveonlylanddisputes"involvingpubliclandsorlandsofthepublicdomainorthose
coveredwithaspecificlicensefromthegovernmentsuchasapastureleaseagreement,atimberconcession,or
areservationgrant."86
1 w p h i1

InNHA,itwasheldthatCOSLAPhasnojurisdictionoveraboundarydisputebetweentwolocalgovernmentunits,
thatitsdecisionisanutternullitycorrectiblebycertiorari,thatitcanneverbecomefinalandanywritofexecution
basedonitisvoid,andallactsperformedpursuanttoitandallclaimsemanatingfromithavenolegaleffect.87
InCayabyab,itwasheldthat"thejurisdictionofCOSLAPdoesnotextendtodisputesinvolvingtheownershipof
private lands, or those already covered by a certificate of title, as these fall exactly within the jurisdiction of the
courtsandotheradministrativeagencies."88
In Ga, Jr., it was reiterated that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over controversies relating to ownership and
possession of private lands, and thus, the failure of respondents to properly appeal from the COSLAP decision
beforetheappropriatecourtwasheldnotfataltothepetitionforcertiorarithattheyeventuallyfiledwiththeCA.
ThelatterremedyremainedavailabledespitethelapseoftheperiodtoappealfromthevoidCOSLAPdecision.89
InMachado,thehighcourtruledthatCOSLAPhasnojurisdictionindisputesoverprivatelandsbetweenprivate
parties,reiteratingtheessentialrulescontainedinSection3ofE.O.No.561governingtheexercisebyCOSLAP
ofitsjurisdiction,towit:
Undertheseterms,theCOSLAPhastwodifferentrulesinactingonalanddisputeorproblemlodgedbeforeit,
e.g.,COSLAPcanassumejurisdictiononlyifthematterisoneofthoseenumeratedinparagraph2(a)to(e)of
the law. Otherwise, it should refer the case to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement or
resolution. In resolving whether to assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer it to the particular agency
concerned,theCOSLAPconsiders:(a)thenatureorclassificationofthelandinvolved(b)thepartiestothecase
(c)thenatureofthequestionsraisedand(d)theneedforimmediateandurgentactionthereontopreventinjury
topersonsanddamageordestructiontoproperty.ThetermsofthelawclearlydonotvestontheCOSLAPthe
generalpowertoassumejurisdictionoveranylanddisputeorproblem.Thus,underEO561,theinstanceswhen
the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only to those involving public lands or those covered by a
specific license from the government, such as pasture lease agreements, timber concessions, or reservation
grants.90(Citationsomitted)
In Vda. de Herrera, the COSLAP assumed jurisdiction over a complaint for "interference, disturbance, unlawful
claim,harassmentandtrespassing"overaprivateparcelofland.TheCAruledthatthepartieswereestoppedto
question COSLAPs jurisdiction since they participated actively in the proceedings. The Supreme Court, noting
from the complaint that the case actually involved a claim of title and possession of private land, ruled that the
RTCortheMTChasjurisdictionsincethedisputedidnotfallunderSection3,paragraph2(a)to(e)ofE.O.No.
561, was not critical and explosive in nature, did not involve a large number of parties, nor was there social
tensionorunrestpresentoremergent.91
In the case at bar, COSLAP has invoked Baaga to assert its jurisdiction. There, Guillermo Baaga had filed a
free patent application with the Bureau of Lands over a public land with an area of 30 has. Gregorio Daproza
(Daproza)alsofiledapatentapplicationforthesameproperty.Theopposingclaimsandprotestsoftheclaimants
remained unresolved by the Bureau of Lands, and neither did it conduct an investigation. Daproza wrote to the

COSLAP, which then opted to exercise jurisdiction over the controversy. The high court sustained COSLAP,
declaringthatitsjurisdictionisnotconfinedtothecasesmentionedinparagraph2(a)to(e)ofE.O.No.561,but
includes land problems in general, which are frequently the source of conflicts among settlers, landowners and
culturalminorities.
ButastheCourthassinceclarifiedinLonginoandintheothercasesaforecited,thelanddisputeinBaagawas
between private individuals who were free patent applicants over unregistered public lands. In contrast, the
presentpetitioninvolveslandtitledtoandmanagedbyagovernmentagencywhichhasbeenexpresslyreserved
bylawforaspecificpublicpurposeotherthanforsettlement.Thus,aswehaveadvisedinLongino,thelawdoes
not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem, but it has to consider the nature or
classification of the land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for
immediateandurgentactionthereontopreventinjuriestopersonsanddamageordestructiontoproperty.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIED.
SOORDERED.
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo.pp.2446.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. BaltazarPadilla. with Associate Justices Josefina

GuevaraSalongaandCeliaC.LibreaLeagogo.concurringid.at5567.
3ld.at7172.
4Id.at112116.
5Id.at115116.
6Id.at29.
7PursuanttoActNo.496(1902)ortheLandRegistrationAct.
8Rollo,p.56.
9SamahanngMasangPilipinosaMakati,Inc.v.BCDA,542Phil.86(2007).
10Rollo,p.56.
11Id.at125supranote9,at93.

12Id.at125126.
13Id.at56,126.
14Id.at29,126.
15Id.at29.
16UnderR.A.No.274,passedonJune15,1948,andR.A.No.730,passedonJune18,1952,theDirector

ofLandsshallcausethesubdivisionintoagriculturalorresidentiallotsoflandswithinmilitaryreservations
owned by the RP which may be declared by the President of the Philippines as no longer needed for
military purposes, for sale, first, to bona fide occupants, then to veterans, etc. The lots shall not be
encumberedoralienatedpriortotheissuanceofthepatent,orfortenyearsthereafter,norshalltheybe
usedtosatisfyadebtcontractedbythepatentholderinthemeantime.
17InahandwrittenaddendumbyPresidentMarcostoProclamationNo.2476,WesternBicutanwasalso

declared open for disposition, but in Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v. Marine Shrine
Services (G.R. No. 187587, June 5, 2013), the addendum was held as without legal effect for lack of
publication.
18TheadditionallotsdeclaredopenfordispositionunderProclamationNo.172were:

LOT1(WESTERNBICUTAN)
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 1 of the subdivision plan Swo13000298, being a portion of the
Proclamation No. 2476) LRC Record No. situated in the Bo. of Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro
Manila.
Bounded on the SW., and SE., along lines 123 by Lot 9100 (Manila Technician Institute)
ProclamationNo.1160ontheNW.,SW.,andNW.,alonglines3to16byCircumferentialRoad,50
m.wide)ontheN.E.,alonglines1617byLot2ofplanSwo13000298,andontheSE.,alongline
171 by Lot 8062 (Veterans Center Compound) (Proclamation No. 192) of plan MCadm590D
TaguigCadastralMapping.
NOTE:Lot2==Lot10253,MCadm590D,Case17,TaguigCadastralMappingBeginningatapoint
marked "1" on plan, being S 63 deg. 25W., 4346, 11 m. from BLBM No. 1, MCadm590D, Taguig
Cadastral,thence
xxxx
beginning, containing an area of TWO HUNDRED FIFTYTWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
SEVENTYSIX(252,476)SQUAREMETERS.Allpointsreferredtoareindicatedontheplanandare
markedonthegroundbyPScyl.conc.wall,andptl17bynailw/conc.hallowblocksbearingsgrid,
date of original survey, April 23, 1978July 12, 1979, that of special work order, July 510, 1986,
approvedonJan.15,1987.
LOT2SWO13000298(WESTERNBICUTAN)
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 2 (Western Bicutan) of the subdivision plan Swo13000298, being a
portionoflanddescribedinProclamationNo.2476,LRCRecordNo.PSU467),situatedintheBo.of
WesternBicutan,Taguig,MetroManila.
Bounded on the SE., along lines 12 by Veterans Center Compound (Proclamation No. 192) (Lot
8092, MCads90D) on the SEW, along lines 3 to 11 by Circumferential Road (5 m. wide) on the
NE.,alonglines1112byLot0063(MilitaryReservation)(FortBonifacio)portionofLot3,Psu2030
(portionon)MCadm590DontheSE.,alonglines1213byLot1Swo13000258(SignalVillage)
(Lot 00202, MCads590D, Case 17, Taguig Cad Mapping and on the SW., along line 1s1 by
Veterans Center Compound) (Proclamation No. 192) (Lot 8062, MCadm590D, Taguig Cad.
Mapping.
NOTE:Lot2==Lot10253,MCadm590D,Case17,TaguigCadastralMapping.
Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being S. 64 deg. 051W., 2805.47 m. from BLBM No. 1,
MCadm590D,TaguigCadastrethence
xxxx

beginning,containinganareaofThreeHundredEightyFiveThousandThirtyTwo(385,032)Square
Meters. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and the marked on the ground by PS cyl.
conc.mons.exceptpts.1byBGY.No.38pt.2bynailwithcrownpt.12byoldPScyl.conc.mons.
pt.10byedgeofconc.wallbearingsandrod,dateoforiginalsurvey,April23,1978July27,1979,
thatofthespecialworkorderJuly510,1986,approvedonJanuary14,1987.xxx.
19AnActAcceleratingTheConversionofMilitaryReservationsIntoProductiveUses,CreatingtheBases

Conversion and Development Authority for This Purpose, Providing Funds Therefor and For Other
Purposes.
20Sec.8.FundingScheme.ThecapitaloftheConversionAuthorityshallcomefromthesalesproceeds

and/or transfers of certain Metro Manila military camps, including all lands covered by Proclamation No.
423,seriesof1957,commonlyknownasFortBonifacioandVillamor(Nicholas)AirBase,namely:
Camp

Areainhas.
(moreorless)

PhaseI(forimmediatedisposal)
1.CampClaudio

2.0

2.CampBagoBantay

5.0

3.PartofVillamorAirBase

135.10

4.PartofFortBonifacio

498.40

Total

640.50

PhaseII
1.CampVer

1.9

2.CampMelchor

1.0

3.CampAtienza

4.9

4.PartofVillamorAirBase
5.PartofFortBonifacio
6.FortAbad

37.9
224.90
.60

Total

271.20

Provided,Thatthefollowingareasshallbeexemptfromsale:
(a) Approximately 148.80 hectares in Fort Bonifacio for the National Capital Region (NCR)
Security Brigade, Philippine Army (PA) officers housing area, and Philippine National Police
(PNP)jailsandsupportservices(PresentlyCampBagongDiwa)
(b) Approximately 99.91 hectares in Villamor Air Base for the Presidential Airlift Wing, one
squadronofhelicoptersfortheNCRandrespectivesecurityunits
(c)ThefollowingareassegregatedbyProclamationNos.:
(1)461,seriesof1965(AFPOfficersVillage)
(2)462,seriesof1965(AFPEnlistedMensVillage)
(3)192,seriesof1967(VeteransCenter)
(4)208,seriesof1967(NationalShrines)
(5)469,seriesof1969(PhilippineCollegeofCommerce)

(6)653,seriesof1970(NationalManpowerandYouthCouncil)
(7)684,seriesof1970(UniversityCenter)
(8)1041,seriesof1972(OpenLeaseConcession)
(9)1160,seriesof1973(ManilaTechnicalInstitute)
(10)1217,seriesof1973(MaharlikaVillage)
(11)682,seriesof1970(CivilAviationPurposes)
(12)1048,seriesof1975(CivilAviationPurposes)
(13)1453,seriesof1975(NationalPoliceCommission)
(14)1633,seriesof1977(HousingandUrbanDevelopment)
(15)2219,seriesof1982(MinistryofHumanSettlements,BLISS)
(16)172,seriesof1987(Upper,LowerandWesternBicutanandSignalHousing)
(17)389,seriesof1989(NationalMappingandResourceInformationAuthority)
(18)518,seriesof1990(CEMBO,SOCEMBO,WREMBO,EREMBO,COMEMBO,
PEMBO,PITOGO)
(19)467,seriesof1968(GreaterManilaTerminalFoodMarketSite)
(20)347,seriesof1968(GreaterManilaFoodMarketSite)
(21)376,seriesof1968(NationalDevelopmentBoardandScienceCommunity)
(d)Aproposed30.15hectaresasrelocationsiteforfamiliestobeaffectedbycircumferential
road 5 and radial road 4 construction: Provided, further, That the boundaries and technical
descriptionoftheseexemptareasshallbedeterminedbyanactualgroundsurvey.
The President is hereby authorized to sell the above lands, in whole or in part, which are hereby
declared alienable and disposable pursuant to the provisions of existing laws and regulations
governingsalesofgovernmentproperties:Provided,Thatnosaleordispositionofsuchlandswillbe
undertaken until a development plan embodying projects for conversion shall be approved by the
President in accordance with paragraph (b), Section 4, of this Act. However, six (6) months after
approval of this Act, the President shall authorize the Conversion Authority to dispose of certain
areasinFortBonifacioandVillamorasthelattersodetermines.xxx.
xxxx
Withrespecttothemilitaryreservationsandtheirextensions,thePresidentuponrecommendationof
theConversionAuthorityortheSubicAuthoritywhenitconcernstheSubicSpecialEconomicZone
shalllikewisebeauthorizedtosellordisposethoseportionsoflandswhichtheConversionAuthority
ortheSubicAuthoritymayfindessentialforthedevelopmentoftheirprojects.(Underscoringours)
21Id.
22AlsotransferredtotheBCDAwere:

Section7.TransferofProperties.Pursuanttoparagraph(a),Section4hereof,thePresidentshall
transferforthwithtotheConversionAuthority:
(a)Station
Areainhas.
(moreorless)
JohnHayAirStation

570

WallaceAirStation

167

ODonnellTransmitterStation

1,755

SanMiguelNavalCommunicationsStation
Mt.Sta.RitaStation(Hermosa,Bataan)

1,100

(b) Such other properties including, but not limited to, portions of Metro Manila military camps,
pursuant to Section 8 of this Act: Provided, however, That the areas which shall remain as military
reservationsshallbedelineatedandproclaimedassuchbythePresident.
23Supranote9,at98.
24SeeR.A.No.7227,Sec.8.
25Section27ofR.A.No.7279authorizesthesummaryevictionanddemolitionofprofessionalsquatters,

thus:
Sec. 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates. The local government
units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban
Poor(PCUP),andthePCUPaccreditedurbanpoororganizationinthearea,shalladoptmeasuresto
identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and
squattingsyndicates,ashereindefined.
Anypersonorgroupidentifiedassuchshallbesummarilyevictedandtheirdwellingsorstructures
demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who
toleratesorabetsthecommissionoftheabovementionedactsshallbedealtwithinaccordancewith
existinglaws.
26Rollo,pp.8290.
27Id.at87.
28Id.at107111.
29Id.at112116.
30Id.at125.
31Id.at115.
32Id.
33260Phil.643(1990).
34Id.at653654.
35Rollo,pp.145149.
36Id.at146.
37Id.at147148.
38Id.at150152.
39Id.at121139.
40Id.at130,citingRepublicv.CA,G.R.No.84966,November21,1991,204SCRA358.
41Id.at132133.
42Id.at131.
43Id.at130131.
44Id.at127.
45Id.at135136.

46ExecutiveOrderNo.561,Section3,Paragraph2(e).
47Rollo,pp.5567.
48Id.at7172.
49Id.at35.
50542Phil.86(2007).
51Id.at9798.
52Id.at98.
53Rollo,p.244.
54Id.
55Id.at133.
56SeeSketchPlanid.at167.
57G.R.No.179987,April29,2009,587SCRA172.
58Id.at204205.
59Id.at203.
60Id.
61 Republic v. Ching, G.R. No. 186166, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 415, 427, citing Heirs of Mario

Malabanan,id.at210.
62SeeBeninv.Tuason,156Phil.525(1974)NataliaRealtyCorporationv.Vallez,255Phil.510(1989).
63IsabelaColleges,Inc.v.HeirsofTolentinoRivera,397Phil.955,969(2000).
64DeVeraCruzv.Miguel,505Phil.593,602603(2005).
65Rollo,p.65.
66Id.at66.
67Machadov.Gatdula,G.R.No.156287,February16,2010,612SCRA546,554.
68Id.,citingTheUnitedResidentsofDominicanHill,Inc.v.COSLAP,406Phil.354,366(2001).
69Id.at554555,citingDavaoNewTownDevelopmentCorporationv.COSLAP,498Phil.530,545(2005).
70Vda.deHerrerav.Bernardo,G.R.No.170251,June1,2011,650SCRA87,92.
71491Phil.600(2005).
72Id.at618621.
73498Phil.530(2005).
74524Phil.533(2006).
75535Phil.766(2006).
76559Phil.132(2007).
77G.R.No.182185,September18,2009,600SCRA739.

78G.R.No.156287,February16,2010,612SCRA546.
79G.R.No.170251,June1,2011,650SCRA87.
80Supranote78,at558,citingLonginov.Atty.General,supranote71,at622.
81Id.at558,citingDavaoNewTownDevelopmentCorp.v.COSLAP,supranote73,at548.
82Id.at557,citingBarrancov.COSLAP,supranote74,at547.
83Supranote71,at621622.
84Supranote73,at547.
85Id.at548549.
86Supranote74,at547,citingDavaoNewTownDevelopmentCorp.v.COSLAP,supranote73,at546.
87Supranote75,at775.
88Supranote76,at147.
89Supranote77,at748.
90Supranote78,at557.
91Supranote79,at94.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation