Secretary of DENR v.

YAP

The case involves two petitions for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

In G.R. No. 167707

Respondent-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan,
alleging that Proclamation No.1801 and its circular declaring Boracay as tourist and Marine reserves
under PTA on the ground that said proclamation precluded them from filing an application for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title despite the fact that they have been in OPEN, CONTINUES,
EXCLUSIVE, and NOTORIOUS possession and occupation (OCEN) in Boracay since June 12, 1945.
They declared their lands for tax purpose and paid realty taxes on them. According to respondents-
claimants, the island was classified as a tourist zone, hence suspectible of private ownership. Under
Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 (Public Land Act) they had the right to have the lots registered through
judicial confirmation of imperfect titles. The Republic contend that Boracay was an unclassified land
of the public domain which is a part of a mass of lands considered as public forest which is not
availbale for disposition under Section 3 of PD705 (Revised Forestry Code).

In G.R. No. 173775

Petitioner claimants and other landowners in Boracay filed an original petition for prohibition,
mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064 which classified Boracay into four 400
hectares of reserved forest land (for protection purposes) and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land
(alienable and disposable). It also provided for a 15-meter buffer zone on each side of the centerline
of roads and trails reserved for right of way. It is argued that the island is deemed agriculutal pursuant
to Philippine Bill 1902 and Ac No. 926.

ISSUE: WON private claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied portion in Boracay
(right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title) under CA No. 141

HELD: NO. They do not comply with the requisites.

Regalian Doctrine and Power of the Executive to Classify Lands

A. History
1935 – Classification of lands: agricultural, mineral, forest or timber
1973 – 1935 classification + residential, industrial, resettlement, grazing, and such other classes as
maybe provided by law.
1987 – 1935 classification + national parks

Spanish Period
Private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on royal
concessions which took various forms, namely:
(1) titulo real or royal grant;
(2) concesion especial or special grant;
(3) composicion con el estado or adjustment title;
(4) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and
(5) informacion posesoria or possessory information title.

Under Section 393 of the Maura Law, an informacion posesoria or possessory

information title, when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is converted into a title of
ownership only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of uninterrupted possession which
must be actual, public, and adverse, from the date of its inscription. However,
 possessory information title had to be perfected one year after the promulgation of the Maura
Law, or until April 17, 1895. Otherwise, the lands would revert to the State.
Philippine Bill 1902
Lands were classified into
(1) Agricultural – agricultural lands are those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or
mineral lands (Mapa v. Insular government)
(2) Mineral – disposed by means of absolute grant (freehold system) and by lease (leasehold system)
(3) Forest or Timber Lands

Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act)

Established a system of registration by which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible,
and imprescriptible. This is known as the Torrens system.

Act No. 926 (first Public Land Act)

The Act introduced the homestead system and made provisions for judicial and administrative
confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale or lease of public lands. It permitted corporations
regardless of the nationality of persons owning the controlling stock to lease or purchase lands of
the public domain. Under the Act, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands for the next ten (10) years preceding July 26, 1904 was sufficient for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

Act No. 2874 (second Public Land Act; superseded Act No. 926)
Limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other
countries which gave Filipinos the same privileges. For judicial confirmation of title, (1) possession
and (2) occupation en concepto dueño since time immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required.

C.A. No. 141 (amended Act no. 2874)

CA No. 141, as amended, remains as the existing general law governing the classification and
disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands, and privately owned
lands which reverted to the State. CA No. 141 retained the requirement of possession and occupation
since July 26, 1894 but was superseded by R.A. 1942 which provided for a 30-year prescriptive
period and was further amended to “possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945 or
earlier”.

PD 892
Discontinued the use of Spanish Titles in LR proceedings. Holders of Spanish titles or grants
should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496 within 6 months from the effectivity of
the decree on February 16, 1976. Thereafter all recording of unregistered lands should be governed
by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3344.

PD 1529 or the Property Registration Decree (amended and superseded Act No. 496)
It was enacted to codify the various laws relative to registration of property.78 It governs
registration of lands under the Torrens system as well as unregistered lands, including chattel
mortgages

B. The Regalian Doctrine

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. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935,
1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
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. Necessarily, IT
IS UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE IF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WILL BE DISPOSED
OF FOR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. The government, as the agent of the state, is POSSESSED OF
THE PLENARY POWER AS THE PERSONA IN LAW TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE THE
FAVORED RECIPIENTS OF PUBLIC LANDS, as well as under what terms they may be granted
such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise
would be ordinary acts of ownership.

Since the State is presumed to be the owner of all lands of the public domain, absent any evidence to
the contrary, there must be a positive act of the government e.g. official proclamation declassifying
inalienable lands of the public domain into disposable land for agricultural and other purposes. The
burden of proof in overcoming this presumption is on the person applying for registration who must
prove that such land is alienable or disposable. There must incontrovertible evidence – a positive act
declaring land of public domain as alienable and disposable e.g. presidential proclamation, EO,
administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Land Investigators, legislative act or statue, or
certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required
number of years is alienable and disposable.

C. The Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act 496

Private Claimants argue that Boracay was already an Agricultural land pursuant to Akron and
De Aldecoa cases decided under the PB 1902 and Act 496.
However, these cases were decided at the time when the Chief Executive had no power to
classify lands of the public domain and so the courts were free to make corresponding classification
hence the rule “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands are agricultural
lands until the contrary is shown”. This is presumption on land classification was necessary to aid
courts but in no wise did such presumption automatically reclassifies all lands of the public domain
into agricultural lands. Such presumption was not absolute as still requires proof that the present and
future value of the land was better suited for non-agricultural purposes. Moreover the presumption
only attaches to land registration cases brought under Act No. 926. It cannot apply to persons who
failed to apply for the benefit under Act No. 926.
This presumption ceased on 1919 when Act No. 2874 was promulgated in 1919 and
reproduced in Section 6 of CA No. 141, which gave the Executive Department, through the President,
the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or
forest.Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or implied, to determine the
classification of lands of the public domain.

D. Act 926 or the first Public Land Act

The law provided that a person may apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title if he has be
in OCEN possession and occupation of the land for 10 years. It is Private Claimants that they have
done so to the extent that such lands converted into private ownership. However, Act 926 merely
prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands hence it
operated under a presumption that title to public lands remained in the government The term "public
land" referred to all lands of the public domain whose title still remained in the government and are
thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of the
government and the friar lands.

E. PD 705
Prior to PD 705, Boracay was unclassified. Upon the enactment of PD 705 under Marcos, all
unclassified lands were considered public forest which is "a mass of lands of the public domain which
has not been the subject of the present system of classification for the determination of which lands
are needed for forest purpose and which are not."

Is the classification determinative of the actual description of land? No.

Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the classifying lands of the public
domain into "agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks," do not necessarily refer
to large tracts of wooded land or expanses covered by dense growths of trees and underbrushes”
The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of
what the land actually looks like.

F. Proclamation 1801
According to Private Claimants, proclamation 1801 converted Boracay as “a tourist zone”
hence susceptible of private ownership.
The Proclamation did not made mention nor convert Boracay into an agricultural land.
Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as
alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended to classify the island as alienable and
disposable or forest, or both, he would have identified the specific limits of each, as President Arroyo
did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not done in Proclamation No. 1801. Simply put, the
proclamation is aimed at administering the islands for tourism and ecological purposes. It does not
address the areas’ alienability.

G. CARP
Private Claimants that Proclamation 1064 violated CARP is misplaced. (1) Boracay is still an
unclassified land despite PD705 (2) prohibition in CARP refers only to reclassification, hence if a land
was previously classified as forested or mineral land, it cannot be reclassified as agricultural land.
The prohibition in Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification of forest lands to agricultural
lands without a prior law delimiting the limits of the public domain, does not, and cannot, apply to
those lands of the public domain, denominated as "public forest" under the Revised Forestry Code,
which have not been previously determined, or classified, as needed for forest purposes in
accordance with the provisions of the Revised Forestry Code.

H. RULING
Requisites of Judicial Confirmation
1. OCEN - Where the land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how
long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.
2. Alienable and disposable – Boracay is still unclassified no positive act of declaration

The tax declarations in the name of private claimants are insufficient to prove the first element of
possession. We note that the earliest of the tax declarations in the name of private claimants were
issued in 1993. Being of recent dates, the tax declarations are not sufficient to convince this Court
that the period of possession and occupation commenced on June 12, 1945.