#85 Director of Lands vs. Rivas
While the latters evidence detailed that Bunugans sole heir,
(G.R. No. L-61539 February 14, 1986)
By: Tangonan, Julius
Doctrine:
1. Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under Sec. 1,
Art. XIII of the 1935 Constitution and Secs. 8, 10 and 11 of
Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Section 10 distinguishes
strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands
(inalienable).
2. Lands within the forest zone or timber reservation cannot be the
object of private ownership.
Facts:
1. On 14 Mar 1973, the CFI granted to Domingo Bunagan a
possessory information title for tract of land specifically
classified as grazing land called Nottab. Lope Guzman and
Pacifico Vijandre now seek to have the same registered.
2. Conflicting evidence were presented by petitioner Pacifico
Vijandre and oppositor Cagayan Valley Agricultural Corp
(Cavaco). Previously, the TC and CA adjudicated the land to
Cavaco, though it was 1,222 ha and exceeded the 1000 ha limit
under law.
3. The formers evidence depicted that that after Bunugans
death, the same was sold by the heirs of Bunugans attorney to
Manuel Guzman. Then Guzmans administratrix, with the courts
approval, sold it to Luis Guzman Reyes. It passed next to Luis
widow, Dolores, who sold the northern portion to Saturnino, and
the southern portion to Rafael. The northern portion was then
sold to spouses Estrada. Finally, the spouses and Rafael sold
their portions to Cavaco.
4.
Manuela Banugan, sold to Pablo Guzman only the portion in
excess of the 1000 ha. After Pablo died, the Nottab was
inherited by his son Lope Guzman Rivas. Later, Lope sold the
same to Ignacio Pascio, who then sold it to his son Fernando.
5. On one hand, the SolGen contents that the CA erred in not
declaring that the land was part of a forest reserve and that
Banugans Spanish titles werent authentic.
6. On the other hand, the lawyer of Pascua argued that the said
land was already private land in Banugans hands and the
latters titles were valid and authentic
Issue: W/N the application of registration of the said land by Lope
and Vijandre should be dismissed as the same is inalienable
public land.
Ratio: YES
Held:
The registration case herein should be dismissed since the disputed
land is part of the forest reserve under PD 159. Its intended for
wood production watershed soil protection and other forest uses.
The same fact is proven by the way that Lope and Pascua treated
the same as pasture land or grazing land. Even under the
presented tax declarations the land was described as for pasture
exclusively.
Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under section 1,
Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution and sections 8, 10 and 11 of
Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Section 10 distinguishes
strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands
(inalienable). Thus, lands within the forest zone or timber
reservation cannot be the object of private ownership.