Secretary of DENR v.

Yap
08 October 2008
Justice Reyes
Lindain

SUMMARY:

DOCTRINE:


FACTS:
(Two consolidated cases)

1. (First case) On November 10, 1978, President Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as tourist zones and maritime
reserves under the administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority. Later,
PTA Circular 3-82 was issued to implement Proc. No. 1801.
2. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 and PTA Circular 3082 precluded them
from filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey
of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants Mayor Yap and others filed a
petition for declaratory relief with RTC-Kalibo, Aklan.
3. The said respondents-claimants presented four arguments before the
RTC: a) they, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay
since June 12, 1945, or early since time immemorial; b) they declared their
lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them; c) since the island was
classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private owernship; d) Under
the Public Land Act (CA No. 141), they had the right to have the lots registered
through judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
4. The OSG countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the
public domain. Since Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable and
disposable, whatever possession they had cannot ripen into ownership.
5. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondent-claimants.
6. (Second case) On May 22, 2006, during the pendency of the First case,
President Arroyo issued Proc. No. 1064, classifying Boracay Island into 400
hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and 628 hectares of
agricultural land (alienable and disposable).
7. Petitioners-claimants in the second case filed a petition to nullify Proc.
No. 1064. They allege that the Proclamation infringed on their prior vested
rights over portions of Boracay, They have been in continued possession of
their respective lots in Boracay. They have also invested money in developing
their lands. Furthermore, they contend that there is no need for a proclamation
reclassifying Boracay into agricultural land. Being classified as neither mineral
nor timber land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the Philippine
Bill of 1902 and Act. No. 926 (First Public Land Act).
8. The OSG countered that Boracay is an unclassified public forest land
pursuant to PD No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions of the island
are inalienable. It is only the executive which has authority to reclassify lands of
the public domain into alienable and disposable lands.

ISSUE: Do the private claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied
portions in Boracay? They do NOT have a right.


RATIO:
1. Commonwealth Act No. 141 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. Section 48 (b) of CA No. 141 requires the possession and occupation of
lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since July 26, 1984. The
provision was last amended by PD No. 1073, which now provides for
possession and occupation of the land applied for since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
2. The issuance of PD 892 on February 16, 1976 discontinued the use of
Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings. All holders of
Spanish titles should apply for registration under Act No. 496 (Land
Registration Act) within six months from the effectivity of the decree. On June
11, 1978, Act No. 496 was amended and updated by PD No. 1529, known as the
Property Registration Decree. It governs registration of lands under the
Torrens system as well as unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages.
3. There must be a positive act of the government, such as an official
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or a statute,
declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or
other purposes. In fact, CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to
those lands which have been officially delimited and classified. In the case at
bar, no such proclamation was presented to the Court. There is no evidence to
show that prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants
were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable.

RULING: