VII.

Specific Evidence: What applicant must prove

SECTION 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the

Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time
classify the lands of the public domain into (a) Alienable or
disposable; (b) Timber, and (c) Mineral lands, and may at any
time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to
another, for the purposes of their administration and disposition.

SECTION 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition

or concession which have been officially delimited and classified
and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not been
reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the
Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor
those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this
Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which, having been
reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so However, the
President may, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the
public domain open to disposition before the same have had their
boundaries established or been surveyed, or may, for the same
reason, suspend their concession or disposition until they are
again declared open to concession or disposition by proclamation
duly published or by Act of the National Assembly.

SECRETARY OF DENR v YAP

FACTS:

On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801

declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve.
Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an
application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey
of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition
for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
opposed the petition countering that Boracay Island was an
unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass
of lands classified as public forest, which was not available for
disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code.

ISSUE:
Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are
automatically deemed agricultural land, therefore making these
lands alienable.

HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration
is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action,
investigative reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a
legislative act or statute.

A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is

required. In keeping with the presumption of state ownership, the
Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a
positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation,
declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes.

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain
belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of
such patrimony.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private

ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands
that have not been acquired from the government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the
inalienable public domain.
Acceptable proofs:

- Copy of the original land classification approved by the DENR

Secretary and certified true copy by the legal custodian of
the official record.
- Reports and testimonies of the district forester, but mere
report and testimony by a district forester identifying
condition of the land is not sufficient.

Insufficient proofs:

- Survey plan even if approved by the Bureau of Lands

Republic v CA (154 SCRA 476) The Court ruled that the petitioner
clearly proved thru the reports and testimonies of the district
foresters that the land applied for registration is a part of a
forestland. As to the claim of the applicants that they have been
in possession of the land since 1915, the court cited its decision in
Director of Forestry v. Munoz (23 SCRA 1184), where it stated that
possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
private ownership.

In its decision, the Court also addressed the CAs ruling by

citing its decision in Heirs of Amunatequi v. Director of Forestry
(126 SCRA 69, 75), where it ruled, A forested area classified as
forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification
simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
forest cover. Forest lands do not have to be on mountains or in
out of the way places. The classification is descriptive of its legal
nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the
land actually looks like.

The Court again reiterated that there must first be a formal

Government declaration that the forestland has been re-classified
into alienable and disposable agricultural land, before private
persons in accordance with the various modes of acquiring public
agricultural lands can acquire it.

- Development of forest land into residential and

commercial does not alter its status as forest land.

The Court ruled that the certification of City

Development Coordinator, which the CA relied on, is not
sufficient to change the nature of the property. The area is
still considered forestland since it has not been declassified
as such by the proper authorities. The Court further stressed
that development of forestland into residential and
commercial status does not alter its legal standpoint as
forestland. Republic v Bacus (176 SCRA 376)

K. Judgement

Partial judgement: In a case where only a portion of the land

subject of registration is contested, the court may render
partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing
the contested and uncontested portions approved by the
Director of Lands is previously submitted to said court.
(Sec 28, PD 1529)

Judgement confirms title: All conflicting claims of ownership

and interest in the land subject of the application shall be
determined by the court. If the court, after considering the
evidence and the reports of the Commissioner of Land
Registration and the Director of Lands, finds that the
applicant or the oppositor has sufficient title proper for
registration, judgment shall be rendered confirming the title
of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or portions
thereof. (Sec 29, PD 1529)

Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a

cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become
final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the
 expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree
of registration. The Supreme Court has held that as long as
a final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration
Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year
has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is
not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration
proceeding continues to be under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering it. Gomez v CA (168 SCRA
503)

A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land

registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law
are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the
interested party together with a motion that the same be
considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior
notice be given to the parties to the case. Mendoza v CA (84
SCRA 76)