G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983 ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR., petitioner, vs. REMEDIOS VDA.

DE LACSAMANA and THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, respondents. Benjamin S. Benito & Associates for petitioner. Expedito Yummul for private respondent.

defendant Lacsamana the building owned by the plaintiff under Tax Declaration No. 5619, notwithstanding the fact that said building is not owned by the bank either by virtue of the public auction sale conducted by the Sheriff and sold to the Philippine National Bank or by virtue of the Deed of Sale executed by the bank itself in its favor on September 21, 1977 ...; 23. That said defendant bank fraudulently mentioned ... that the sale in its favor should likewise have included the building, notwithstanding no legal basis for the same and despite full knowledge that the Certificate of Sale executed by the sheriff in its favor ... only limited the sale to the land, hence, by selling the building which never became the property of defendant, they have violated the principle against 'pactum commisorium'. Petitioner prayed that the Deed of Sale of the building in favor of respondent Lacsamana be declared null and void and that damages in the total sum of P230,000.00, more or less, be awarded to him. 2 In her Answer filed on March 4, 1980,-respondent Lacsamana averred the affirmative defense of lack of cause of action in that she was a purchaser for value and invoked the principle in Civil Law that the "accessory follows the principal". 3 On March 14, 1980, respondent PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that venue was improperly laid considering that the building was real property under article 415 (1) of the New Civil Code and therefore section 2(a) of Rule 4 should apply. 4 Opposing said Motion to Dismiss, petitioner contended that the action for annulment of deed of sale with damages is in the nature of a personal action, which seeks to recover not the title nor possession of the property but to compel payment of damages, which is not an action affecting title to real property. On April 25, 1980, respondent Court granted respondent PNB's Motion to Dismiss as follows: Acting upon the 'Motion to Dismiss' of the defendant Philippine National Bank dated March 13, 1980, considered against the plaintiff's opposition thereto dated April 1, 1980, including the reply therewith of said defendant, this Court resolves to DISMISS the plaintiff's complaint for improper venue considering that the plaintiff's complaint which seeks for the declaration as null and void, the amendment to Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the defendant Philippine National Bank in favor of the defendant Remedios T. Vda. de Lacsamana, on July 31, 1978, involves a warehouse allegedly owned and constructed by the plaintiff on the land of the defendant Philippine National Bank situated in the Municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac, which warehouse is an immovable property pursuant to Article 415, No. 1 of the New Civil Code; and, as such the action of the plaintiff is a real action affecting title to real property which, under Section 2, Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court, must be tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. 5 In his Motion for Reconsideration of the aforestated Order, petitioner reiterated the argument that the action to annul does not involve ownership or title to property but is

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: The sole issue presented by petitioner for resolution is whether or not respondent Court erred in denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect to respondent Remedios Vda. de Lacsamana as the case had been dismissed on the ground of improper venue upon motion of co-respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB). It appears that petitioner, Antonio Punsalan, Jr., was the former registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of 340 square meters situated in Bamban, Tarlac. In 1963, petitioner mortgaged said land to respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) in the amount of P10,000.00, but for failure to pay said amount, the property was foreclosed on December 16, 1970. Respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) was the highest bidder in said foreclosure proceedings. However, the bank secured title thereto only on December 14, 1977. In the meantime, in 1974, while the properly was still in the alleged possession of petitioner and with the alleged acquiescence of respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch), and upon securing a permit from the Municipal Mayor, petitioner constructed a warehouse on said property. Petitioner declared said warehouse for tax purposes for which he was issued Tax Declaration No. 5619. Petitioner then leased the warehouse to one Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years starting January 1975. On July 26, 1978, a Deed of Sale was executed between respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) and respondent Lacsamana over the property. This contract was amended on July 31, 1978, particularly to include in the sale, the building and improvement thereon. By virtue of said instruments, respondent - Lacsamana secured title over the property in her name (TCT No. 173744) as well as separate tax declarations for the land and building. 1 On November 22, 1979, petitioner commenced suit for "Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages" against herein respondents PNB and Lacsamana before respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI, Quezon City, essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the building as embodied in the Amended Deed of Sale. In this connection, petitioner alleged: xxx xxx xxx 22. That defendant, Philippine National Bank, through its Branch Manager ... by virtue of the request of defendant ... executed a document dated July 31, 1978, entitled Amendment to Deed of Absolute Sale ... wherein said defendant bank as Vendor sold to

limited to the validity of the deed of sale and emphasized that the case should proceed with or without respondent PNB as respondent Lacsamana had already filed her Answer to the Complaint and no issue on venue had been raised by the latter. On September 1, 1980,.respondent Court denied reconsideration for lack of merit. Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial, in so far as respondent Lacsamana was concerned, as the issues had already been joined with the filing of respondent Lacsamana's Answer. In the Order of November 10, 1980 respondent Court denied said Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial as the case was already dismissed in the previous Orders of April 25, 1980 and September 1, 1980. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari, to which we gave due course. We affirm respondent Court's Order denying the setting for pre-trial. The warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property as provided in article 415(l) of the Civil Code. 6 Buildings are always immovable under the Code. 7 A building treated separately from the land on which it stood is immovable property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable property. 8 While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. 9 Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Section 2, Rule 4) 10, which was timely raised (Section 1, Rule 16) 11. Petitioner's other contention that the case should proceed in so far as respondent Lacsamana is concerned as she had already filed an Answer, which did not allege improper venue and, therefore, issues had already been joined, is likewise untenable. Respondent PNB is an indispensable party as the validity of the Amended Contract of Sale between the former and respondent Lacsamana is in issue. It would, indeed, be futile to proceed with the case against respondent Lacsamana alone. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied without prejudice to the refiling of the case by petitioner Antonio Punsalan, Jr. in the proper forum. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-50008 August 31, 1987

PRUDENTIAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City; FERNANDO MAGCALE & TEODULA BALUYUT-MAGCALE, respondents.

PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the November 13, 1978 Decision * of the then Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 2443-0 entitled "Spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut-Magcale vs. Hon. Ramon Y. Pardo and Prudential Bank" declaring that the deeds of real estate mortgage executed by respondent spouses in favor of petitioner bank are null and void. The undisputed facts of this case by stipulation of the parties are as follows: ... on November 19, 1971, plaintiffs-spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut Magcale secured a loan in the sum of P70,000.00 from the defendant Prudential Bank. To secure payment of this loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of defendant on the aforesaid date a deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the following described properties: l. A 2-STOREY, SEMI-CONCRETE, residential building with warehouse spaces containing a total floor area of 263 sq. meters, more or less, generally constructed of mixed hard wood and concrete materials, under a roofing of cor. g. i. sheets; declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax Declaration No. 21109, issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed value of P35,290.00. This building is the only improvement of the lot. 2. THE PROPERTY hereby conveyed by way of MORTGAGE includes the right of occupancy on the lot where the above property is erected, and more particularly described and bounded, as follows: A first class residential land Identffied as Lot No. 720, (Ts-308, Olongapo Townsite Subdivision) Ardoin Street, East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City, containing an area of 465 sq. m. more or less, declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax Duration No. 19595 issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed value of P1,860.00; bounded on the NORTH: By No. 6, Ardoin Street SOUTH: By No. 2, Ardoin Street

EAST: By 37 Canda Street, and WEST: By Ardoin Street. All corners of the lot marked by conc. cylindrical monuments of the Bureau of Lands as visible limits. ( Exhibit "A, " also Exhibit "1" for defendant). Apart from the stipulations in the printed portion of the aforestated deed of mortgage, there appears a rider typed at the bottom of the reverse side of the document under the lists of the properties mortgaged which reads, as follows: AND IT IS FURTHER AGREED that in the event the Sales Patent on the lot applied for by the Mortgagors as herein stated is released or issued by the Bureau of Lands, the Mortgagors hereby authorize the Register of Deeds to hold the Registration of same until this Mortgage is cancelled, or to annotate this encumbrance on the Title upon authority from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which title with annotation, shall be released in favor of the herein Mortgage. From the aforequoted stipulation, it is obvious that the mortgagee (defendant Prudential Bank) was at the outset aware of the fact that the mortgagors (plaintiffs) have already filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the lot, possessory rights over which, were mortgaged to it. Exhibit "A" (Real Estate Mortgage) was registered under the Provisions of Act 3344 with the Registry of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971. On May 2, 1973, plaintiffs secured an additional loan from defendant Prudential Bank in the sum of P20,000.00. To secure payment of this additional loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of the said defendant another deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the same properties previously mortgaged in Exhibit "A." (Exhibit "B;" also Exhibit "2" for defendant). This second deed of Real Estate

Mortgage was likewise registered with the Registry of Deeds, this time in Olongapo City, on May 2,1973. On April 24, 1973, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 over the parcel of land, possessory rights over which were mortgaged to defendant Prudential Bank, in favor of plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid Patent, and upon its transcription in the Registration Book of the Province of Zambales, Original Certificate of Title No. P-2554 was issued in the name of Plaintiff Fernando Magcale, by the Ex-Oficio Register of Deeds of Zambales, on May 15, 1972. For failure of plaintiffs to pay their obligation to defendant Bank after it became due, and upon application of said defendant, the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage (Exhibits "A" and "B") were extrajudicially foreclosed. Consequent to the foreclosure was the sale of the properties therein mortgaged to defendant as the highest bidder in a public auction sale conducted by the defendant City Sheriff on April 12, 1978 (Exhibit "E"). The auction sale aforesaid was held despite written request from plaintiffs through counsel dated March 29, 1978, for the defendant City Sheriff to desist from going with the scheduled public auction sale (Exhibit "D")." (Decision, Civil Case No. 2443-0, Rollo, pp. 29-31). Respondent Court, in a Decision dated November 3, 1978 declared the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage as null and void (Ibid., p. 35). On December 14, 1978, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid., pp. 41-53), opposed by private respondents on January 5, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 54-62), and in an Order dated January 10, 1979 (Ibid., p. 63), the Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition (Ibid., pp. 5-28). The first Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated March 9, 1979, resolved to require the respondents to comment (Ibid., p. 65), which order was complied with the Resolution dated May 18,1979, (Ibid., p. 100), petitioner filed its Reply on June 2,1979 (Ibid., pp. 101-112). Thereafter, in the Resolution dated June 13, 1979, the petition was given due course and the parties were required to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda. (Ibid., p. 114). On July 18, 1979, petitioner filed its Memorandum (Ibid., pp. 116-144), while private respondents filed their Memorandum on August 1, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 146-155). In a Resolution dated August 10, 1979, this case was considered submitted for decision (Ibid., P. 158). In its Memorandum, petitioner raised the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ARE VALID; AND 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERVENING ISSUANCE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OF MISCELLANEOUS SALES PATENT NO. 4776 ON APRIL 24, 1972 UNDER

ACT NO. 730 AND THE COVERING ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P-2554 ON MAY 15,1972 HAVE THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE. (Memorandum for Petitioner, Rollo, p. 122). This petition is impressed with merit. The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not a valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another. The answer is in the affirmative. In the enumeration of properties under Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, this Court ruled that, "it is obvious that the inclusion of "building" separate and distinct from the land, in said provision of law can only mean that a building is by itself an immovable property." (Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr., et al., L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958; Associated Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Iya, et al., L-10837-38, May 30,1958). Thus, while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land (Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644). In the same manner, this Court has also established that possessory rights over said properties before title is vested on the grantee, may be validly transferred or conveyed as in a deed of mortgage (Vda. de Bautista vs. Marcos, 3 SCRA 438 [1961]). Coming back to the case at bar, the records show, as aforestated that the original mortgage deed on the 2-storey semi-concrete residential building with warehouse and on the right of occupancy on the lot where the building was erected, was executed on November 19, 1971 and registered under the provisions of Act 3344 with the Register of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971. Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 on the land was issued on April 24, 1972, on the basis of which OCT No. 2554 was issued in the name of private respondent Fernando Magcale on May 15, 1972. It is therefore without question that the original mortgage was executed before the issuance of the final patent and before the government was divested of its title to the land, an event which takes effect only on the issuance of the sales patent and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds (Visayan Realty Inc. vs. Meer, 96 Phil. 515; Director of Lands vs. De Leon, 110 Phil. 28; Director of Lands vs. Jurado, L-14702, May 23, 1961; Pena "Law on Natural Resources", p. 49). Under the foregoing considerations, it is evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own building which was erected on the land belonging to the government is to all intents and purposes a valid mortgage. As to restrictions expressly mentioned on the face of respondents' OCT No. P-2554, it will be noted that Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act, refer to land already acquired under the Public Land Act, or any improvement thereon and therefore have no application to the assailed mortgage in the case at bar which was executed before such eventuality. Likewise, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 730, also a restriction appearing on the face of private respondent's title has likewise no application in the instant case, despite its reference to encumbrance or alienation before the patent is issued because it refers specifically to encumbrance or alienation on the land itself and does not mention anything regarding the improvements existing thereon. But it is a different matter, as regards the second mortgage executed over the same properties on May 2, 1973 for an additional loan of P20,000.00 which was registered with

the Registry of Deeds of Olongapo City on the same date. Relative thereto, it is evident that such mortgage executed after the issuance of the sales patent and of the Original Certificate of Title, falls squarely under the prohibitions stated in Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act and Section 2 of Republic Act 730, and is therefore null and void. Petitioner points out that private respondents, after physically possessing the title for five years, voluntarily surrendered the same to the bank in 1977 in order that the mortgaged may be annotated, without requiring the bank to get the prior approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources beforehand, thereby implicitly authorizing Prudential Bank to cause the annotation of said mortgage on their title. However, the Court, in recently ruling on violations of Section 124 which refers to Sections 118, 120, 122 and 123 of Commonwealth Act 141, has held: ... Nonetheless, we apply our earlier rulings because we believe that as in pari delicto may not be invoked to defeat the policy of the State neither may the doctrine of estoppel give a validating effect to a void contract. Indeed, it is generally considered that as between parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy (19 Am. Jur. 802). It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law was to preserve (Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. De los Amas and Alino supra). ... (Arsenal vs. IAC, 143 SCRA 54 [1986]). This pronouncement covers only the previous transaction already alluded to and does not pass upon any new contract between the parties (Ibid), as in the case at bar. It should not preclude new contracts that may be entered into between petitioner bank and private respondents that are in accordance with the requirements of the law. After all, private respondents themselves declare that they are not denying the legitimacy of their debts and appear to be open to new negotiations under the law (Comment; Rollo, pp. 95-96). Any new transaction, however, would be subject to whatever steps the Government may take for the reversion of the land in its favor. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City is hereby MODIFIED, declaring that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for P70,000.00 is valid but ruling that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for an additional loan of P20,000.00 is null and void, without prejudice to any appropriate action the Government may take against private respondents. SO ORDERED G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001

RUBY L. TSAI, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents. x---------------------------------------------------------x [G.R. No. 120109. October 2, 2001.]

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: These consolidated cases assail the decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986, affirming the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 89-48265. Also assailed is respondent court's resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. On November 26, 1975, respondent Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained a three million peso (P3,000,000.00) loan from petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). As security for the loan, EVERTEX executed in favor of PBCom, a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot under TCT No. 372097, where its factory stands, and the chattels located therein as enumerated in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. The pertinent portions of the Real and Chattel Mortgage are quoted below: MORTGAGE

xxx

xxx

xxx

D. Four (4) Winding Machines. xxx SCHEDULE "A" I. TCT # 372097 - RIZAL xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

II. Any and all buildings and improvements now existing or hereafter to exist on the above-mentioned lot. III. MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT situated, located and/or installed on the above-mentioned lot located at . . . (a) Forty eight sets (48) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . .

(REAL AND CHATTEL) (b) Sixteen sets (16) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . . xxx xxx xxx (c) Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines . . . The MORTGAGOR(S) hereby transfer(s) and convey(s), by way of First Mortgage, to the MORTGAGEE, . . . certain parcel(s) of land, together with all the buildings and improvements now existing or which may hereafter exist thereon, situated in . . . "Annex A" (Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by Ever Textile Mills in favor of PBCommunications continued) LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT A. Forty Eight (48) units of Vayrow Knitting Machines-Tompkins made in Hongkong: Serial Numbers Size of Machines xxx xxx xxx On November 19, 1982, due to business reverses, EVERTEX filed insolvency proceedings docketed as SP Proc. No. LP-3091-P before the defunct Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXVIII. The CFI issued an order on November 24, 1982 declaring the corporation insolvent. All its assets were taken into the custody of the Insolvency Court, including the collateral, real and personal, securing the two mortgages as abovementioned. (d) Two (2) Winding Machines . . . (e) Two (2) Winding Machines . . . IV. Any and all replacements, substitutions, additions, increases and accretions to above properties. xxx xxx xxx3

On April 23, 1979, PBCom granted a second loan of P3,356,000.00 to EVERTEX. The loan was secured by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached thereto. These listed properties were similar to those listed in Annex A of the first mortgage deed. After April 23, 1979, the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX purchased various machines and equipments.

B. Sixteen (16) sets of Vayrow Knitting Machines made in Taiwan. xxx xxx xxx

C. Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines made in West Germany.

In the meantime, upon EVERTEX's failure to meet its obligation to PBCom, the latter commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX under Act 3135, otherwise known as "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages" and Act 1506 or "The Chattel Mortgage Law". A Notice of Sheriff's Sale was issued on December 1, 1982. On December 15, 1982, the first public auction was held where petitioner PBCom emerged as the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date. On December 23, 1982, another public auction was held and again, PBCom was the highest bidder. The sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale on the same day. On March 7, 1984, PBCom consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the properties in it. In November 1986, it leased the entire factory premises to petitioner Ruby L. Tsai for P50,000.00 a month. On May 3, 1988, PBCom sold the factory, lock, stock and barrel to Tsai for P9,000,000.00, including the contested machineries. On March 16, 1989, EVERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages with the Regional Trial Court against PBCom, alleging inter alia that the extrajudicial foreclosure of subject mortgage was in violation of the Insolvency Law. EVERTEX claimed that no rights having been transmitted to PBCom over the assets of insolvent EVERTEX, therefore Tsai acquired no rights over such assets sold to her, and should reconvey the assets. Further, EVERTEX averred that PBCom, without any legal or factual basis, appropriated the contested properties, which were not included in the Real and Chattel Mortgage of November 26, 1975 nor in the Chattel Mortgage of April 23, 1979, and neither were those properties included in the Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated December 1, 1982 and Certificate of Sale . . . dated December 15, 1982. The disputed properties, which were valued at P4,000,000.00, are: 14 Interlock Circular Knitting Machines, 1 Jet Drying Equipment, 1 Dryer Equipment, 1 Raisin Equipment and 1 Heatset Equipment. The RTC found that the lease and sale of said personal properties were irregular and illegal because they were not duly foreclosed nor sold at the December 15, 1982 auction sale since these were not included in the schedules attached to the mortgage contracts. The trial court decreed: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff corporation and against the defendants: 1. Ordering the annulment of the sale executed by defendant Philippine Bank of Communications in favor of defendant Ruby L. Tsai on May 3, 1988 insofar as it affects the personal properties listed in par. 9 of the complaint, and their return to the plaintiff corporation through its assignee, plaintiff Mamerto R. Villaluz, for disposition by the Insolvency Court, to be done within ten (10) days from finality of this decision; 2. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P5,200,000.00 as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question from November 1986 to February 1991 and P100,000.00 every month thereafter, with interest thereon at the legal rate per annum until full payment;

3. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; 4. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P200,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; 5. Ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim of the defendants; and 6. Ordering the defendants to proportionately pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.4 Dissatisfied, both PBCom and Tsai appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued its decision dated August 31, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, except for the deletion and reduction of the actual damages, November 1986 until subject personal appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, in therefrom of the award; for exemplary damages, from P100,000.00 to P20,000.00 per month, from properties are restored to appellees, the judgment all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.5

Motion for reconsideration of the above decision having been denied in the resolution of April 28, 1995, PBCom and Tsai filed their separate petitions for review with this Court. In G.R No. 120098, petitioner Tsai ascribed the following errors to the respondent court: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN EFFECT MAKING A CONTRACT FOR THE PARTIES BY TREATING THE 1981 ACQUIRED MACHINERIES AS CHATTELS INSTEAD OF REAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THEIR EARLIER 1975 DEED OF REAL AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE OR 1979 DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISPUTED 1981 MACHINERIES ARE NOT REAL PROPERTIES DEEMED PART OF THE MORTGAGE DESPITE THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE EVIDENCE AND APPLICABLE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT. III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN DEEMING PETITIONER A PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH. IV THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN ASSESSING PETITIONER ACTUAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION FOR WANT OF VALID FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS.

V THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING AGAINST PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS ON PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES.6 In G.R. No. 120098, PBCom raised the following issues: I. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY DECREE THE MACHINERIES LISTED UNDER PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE COMPLAINT BELOW AS PERSONAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE 1975 DEED OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AND EXCLUDED THEM FROM THE REAL PROPERTY EXTRAJUDICIALLY FORECLOSED BY PBCOM DESPITE THE PROVISION IN THE 1975 DEED THAT ALL AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTIES DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE MORTGAGE SHALL FORM PART THEREOF, AND DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SAID MACHINERIES ARE BIG AND HEAVY, BOLTED OR CEMENTED ON THE REAL PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY EVER TEXTILE MILLS TO PBCOM, AND WERE ASSESSED FOR REAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES? II CAN PBCOM, WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE MACHINERIES IN QUESTION IN GOOD FAITH, EXTENDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO EVER TEXTILE MILLS WHICH AS OF 1982 TOTALLED P9,547,095.28, WHO HAD SPENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY ON THE DISPUTED MACHINERIES AND HAD TO PAY ALL THE BACK TAXES OF EVER TEXTILE MILLS BE LEGALLY COMPELLED TO RETURN TO EVER THE SAID MACHINERIES OR IN LIEU THEREOF BE ASSESSED DAMAGES. IS THAT SITUATION TANTAMOUNT TO A CASE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT?7 The principal issue, in our view, is whether or not the inclusion of the questioned properties in the foreclosed properties is proper. The secondary issue is whether or not the sale of these properties to petitioner Ruby Tsai is valid. For her part, Tsai avers that the Court of Appeals in effect made a contract for the parties by treating the 1981 acquired units of machinery as chattels instead of real properties within their earlier 1975 deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage or 1979 deed of Chattel Mortgage.8 Additionally, Tsai argues that respondent court erred in holding that the disputed 1981 machineries are not real properties.9 Finally, she contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding against petitioner's arguments on prescription and laches10 and in assessing petitioner actual damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, for want of valid factual and legal basis.11 Essentially, PBCom contends that respondent court erred in affirming the lower court's judgment decreeing that the pieces of machinery in dispute were not duly foreclosed and could not be legally leased nor sold to Ruby Tsai. It further argued that the Court of Appeals' pronouncement that the pieces of machinery in question were personal properties have no factual and legal basis. Finally, it asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in assessing damages and attorney's fees against PBCom. In opposition, private respondents argue that the controverted units of machinery are not "real properties" but chattels, and, therefore, they were not part of the foreclosed real properties, rendering the lease and the subsequent sale thereof to Tsai a nullity.12

Considering the assigned errors and the arguments of the parties, we find the petitions devoid of merit and ought to be denied. Well settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.13 This rule is applied more stringently when the findings of fact of the RTC is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.14 The following are the facts as found by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that are decisive of the issues: (1) the "controverted machineries" are not covered by, or included in, either of the two mortgages, the Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage, and the pure Chattel Mortgage; (2) the said machineries were not included in the list of properties appended to the Notice of Sale, and neither were they included in the Sheriff's Notice of Sale of the foreclosed properties.15 Petitioners contend that the nature of the disputed machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or cemented on the real property mortgaged by EVERTEX to PBCom, make them ipso facto immovable under Article 415 (3) and (5) of the New Civil Code. This assertion, however, does not settle the issue. Mere nuts and bolts do not foreclose the controversy. We have to look at the parties' intent. While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by the parties herein gives us a contrary indication. In the case at bar, both the trial and the appellate courts reached the same finding that the true intention of PBCOM and the owner, EVERTEX, is to treat machinery and equipment as chattels. The pertinent portion of respondent appellate court's ruling is quoted below: As stressed upon by appellees, appellant bank treated the machineries as chattels; never as real properties. Indeed, the 1975 mortgage contract, which was actually real and chattel mortgage, militates against appellants' posture. It should be noted that the printed form used by appellant bank was mainly for real estate mortgages. But reflective of the true intention of appellant PBCOM and appellee EVERTEX was the typing in capital letters, immediately following the printed caption of mortgage, of the phrase "real and chattel." So also, the "machineries and equipment" in the printed form of the bank had to be inserted in the blank space of the printed contract and connected with the word "building" by typewritten slash marks. Now, then, if the machineries in question were contemplated to be included in the real estate mortgage, there would have been no necessity to ink a chattel mortgage specifically mentioning as part III of Schedule A a listing of the machineries covered thereby. It would have sufficed to list them as immovables in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage of the land and building involved. As regards the 1979 contract, the intention of the parties is clear and beyond question. It refers solely to chattels. The inventory list of the mortgaged properties is an itemization of sixty-three (63) individually described machineries while the schedule listed only machines and 2,996,880.50 worth of finished cotton fabrics and natural cotton fabrics.16 In the absence of any showing that this conclusion is baseless, erroneous or uncorroborated by the evidence on record, we find no compelling reason to depart therefrom.

Too, assuming arguendo that the properties in question are immovable by nature, nothing detracts the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel. As far back as Navarro v. Pineda, 9 SCRA 631 (1963), an immovable may be considered a personal property if there is a stipulation as when it is used as security in the payment of an obligation where a chattel mortgage is executed over it, as in the case at bar. In the instant case, the parties herein: (1) executed a contract styled as "Real Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage," instead of just "Real Estate Mortgage" if indeed their intention is to treat all properties included therein as immovable, and (2) attached to the said contract a separate "LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT". These facts, taken together, evince the conclusion that the parties' intention is to treat these units of machinery as chattels. A fortiori, the contested after-acquired properties, which are of the same description as the units enumerated under the title "LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT," must also be treated as chattels. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the respondent appellate court's ruling that inasmuch as the subject mortgages were intended by the parties to involve chattels, insofar as equipment and machinery were concerned, the Chattel Mortgage Law applies, which provides in Section 7 thereof that: "a chattel mortgage shall be deemed to cover only the property described therein and not like or substituted property thereafter acquired by the mortgagor and placed in the same depository as the property originally mortgaged, anything in the mortgage to the contrary notwithstanding." And, since the disputed machineries were acquired in 1981 and could not have been involved in the 1975 or 1979 chattel mortgages, it was consequently an error on the part of the Sheriff to include subject machineries with the properties enumerated in said chattel mortgages. As the auction sale of the subject properties to PBCom is void, no valid title passed in its favor. Consequently, the sale thereof to Tsai is also a nullity under the elementary principle of nemo dat quod non habet, one cannot give what one does not have.17 Petitioner Tsai also argued that assuming that PBCom's title over the contested properties is a nullity, she is nevertheless a purchaser in good faith and for value who now has a better right than EVERTEX. To the contrary, however, are the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court that she is not a purchaser in good faith. Well-settled is the rule that the person who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving such assertion.18 Petitioner Tsai failed to discharge this burden persuasively. Moreover, a purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.19 Records reveal, however, that when Tsai purchased the controverted properties, she knew of respondent's claim thereon. As borne out by the records, she received the letter of respondent's counsel, apprising her of respondent's claim, dated February 27, 1987.20 She replied thereto on March 9, 1987.21 Despite her knowledge of respondent's claim, she proceeded to buy the contested units of machinery on May 3, 1988. Thus, the RTC did not err in finding that she was not a purchaser in good faith.

Petitioner Tsai's defense of indefeasibility of Torrens Title of the lot where the disputed properties are located is equally unavailing. This defense refers to sale of lands and not to sale of properties situated therein. Likewise, the mere fact that the lot where the factory and the disputed properties stand is in PBCom's name does not automatically make PBCom the owner of everything found therein, especially in view of EVERTEX's letter to Tsai enunciating its claim. Finally, petitioners' defense of prescription and laches is less than convincing. We find no cogent reason to disturb the consistent findings of both courts below that the case for the reconveyance of the disputed properties was filed within the reglementary period. Here, in our view, the doctrine of laches does not apply. Note that upon petitioners' adamant refusal to heed EVERTEX's claim, respondent company immediately filed an action to recover possession and ownership of the disputed properties. There is no evidence showing any failure or neglect on its part, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The doctrine of stale demands would apply only where by reason of the lapse of time, it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. Moreover, except for very strong reasons, this Court is not disposed to apply the doctrine of laches to prejudice or defeat the rights of an owner.22 As to the award of damages, the contested damages are the actual compensation, representing rentals for the contested units of machinery, the exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. As regards said actual compensation, the RTC awarded P100,000.00 corresponding to the unpaid rentals of the contested properties based on the testimony of John Chua, who testified that the P100,000.00 was based on the accepted practice in banking and finance, business and investments that the rental price must take into account the cost of money used to buy them. The Court of Appeals did not give full credence to Chua's projection and reduced the award to P20,000.00. Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.23 However, the allegations of respondent company as to the amount of unrealized rentals due them as actual damages remain mere assertions unsupported by documents and other competent evidence. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.24 However, we are not prepared to disregard the following dispositions of the respondent appellate court: . . . In the award of actual damages under scrutiny, there is nothing on record warranting the said award of P5,200,000.00, representing monthly rental income of P100,000.00 from November 1986 to February 1991, and the additional award of P100,000.00 per month thereafter. As pointed out by appellants, the testimonial evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Jonh (sic) Chua and Mamerto Villaluz, is shy of what is necessary to substantiate the actual damages allegedly sustained by appellees, by way of unrealized rental income of subject machineries and equipments. The testimony of John Cua (sic) is nothing but an opinion or projection based on what is claimed to be a practice in business and industry. But such a testimony cannot serve as the sole basis for assessing the actual damages complained of.

What is more, there is no showing that had appellant Tsai not taken possession of the machineries and equipments in question, somebody was willing and ready to rent the same for P100,000.00 a month. xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-20329 March 16, 1923

Then, too, even assuming arguendo that the said machineries and equipments could have generated a rental income of P30,000.00 a month, as projected by witness Mamerto Villaluz, the same would have been a gross income. Therefrom should be deducted or removed, expenses for maintenance and repairs . . . Therefore, in the determination of the actual damages or unrealized rental income sued upon, there is a good basis to calculate that at least four months in a year, the machineries in dispute would have been idle due to absence of a lessee or while being repaired. In the light of the foregoing rationalization and computation, We believe that a net unrealized rental income of P20,000.00 a month, since November 1986, is more realistic and fair.25 As to exemplary damages, the RTC awarded P200,000.00 to EVERTEX which the Court of Appeals deleted. But according to the CA, there was no clear showing that petitioners acted malevolently, wantonly and oppressively. The evidence, however, shows otherwise.It is a requisite to award exemplary damages that the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith,26 and the guilty acted in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, reckless or malevolent manner.27 As previously stressed, petitioner Tsai's act of purchasing the controverted properties despite her knowledge of EVERTEX's claim was oppressive and subjected the already insolvent respondent to gross disadvantage. Petitioner PBCom also received the same letters of Atty. Villaluz, responding thereto on March 24, 1987.28 Thus, PBCom's act of taking all the properties found in the factory of the financially handicapped respondent, including those properties not covered by or included in the mortgages, is equally oppressive and tainted with bad faith. Thus, we are in agreement with the RTC that an award of exemplary damages is proper. The amount of P200,000.00 for exemplary damages is, however, excessive. Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides that no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for the adjudication of exemplary damages, their assessment being left to the discretion of the court in accordance with the circumstances of each case.29 While the imposition of exemplary damages is justified in this case, equity calls for its reduction. In Inhelder Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-52358, 122 SCRA 576, 585, (May 30, 1983), we laid down the rule that judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured objectivity. Thus, here the award of exemplary damages by way of example for the public good should be reduced to P100,000.00. By the same token, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded.30 In our view, RTC's award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is reasonable, given the circumstances in these cases. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Petitioners Philippine Bank of Communications and Ruby L. Tsai are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally Ever Textile Mills, Inc. the following: (1) P20,000.00 per month, as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question from November 198631 until subject personal properties are restored to respondent corporation; (2) P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, and (3) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against petitioners.

THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN JARAMILLO, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, respondent. Ross, Lawrence and Selph for City Fiscal Revilla and Assistant City Fiscal Rodas for respondent. STREET, J.: This cause is before us upon demurrer interposed by the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, register of deeds of the City of Manila, to an original petition of the Standard Oil Company of New York, seeking a peremptory mandamus to compel the respondent to record in the proper register a document purporting to be a chattel mortgage executed in the City of Manila by Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, in favor of the Standard Oil Company of New York. It appears from the petition that on November 27, 1922, Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the lessee of a parcel of land situated in the City of Manila and owner of the house of strong materials built thereon, upon which date she executed a document in the form of a chattel mortgage, purporting to convey to the petitioner by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest in said lot and the building which stands thereon. The clauses in said document describing the property intended to be thus mortgage are expressed in the following words: Now, therefore, the mortgagor hereby conveys and transfer to the mortgage, by way of mortgage, the following described personal property, situated in the City of Manila, and now in possession of the mortgagor, to wit: (1) All of the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in and to the contract of lease hereinabove referred to, and in and to the premises the subject of the said lease; (2) The building, property of the mortgagor, situated on the aforesaid leased premises. After said document had been duly acknowledge and delivered, the petitioner caused the same to be presented to the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for the purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record of chattel mortgages. Upon examination of the instrument, the respondent was of the opinion that it was not a chattel mortgage, for the reason that the interest therein mortgaged did not appear to be personal property, within the meaning of the Chattel Mortgage Law, and registration was refused on this ground only. We are of the opinion that the position taken by the respondent is untenable; and it is his duty to accept the proper fee and place the instrument on record. The duties of a register of deeds in respect to the registration of chattel mortgage are of a purely ministerial character; and no provision of law can be cited which confers upon him any judicial or petitioner.

quasi-judicial power to determine the nature of any document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage. The original provisions touching this matter are contained in section 15 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), as amended by Act No. 2496; but these have been transferred to section 198 of the Administrative Code, where they are now found. There is nothing in any of these provisions conferring upon the register of deeds any authority whatever in respect to the "qualification," as the term is used in Spanish law, of chattel mortgage. His duties in respect to such instruments are ministerial only. The efficacy of the act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that it operates as constructive notice of the existence of the contract, and the legal effects of the contract must be discovered in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of notice. Registration adds nothing to the instrument, considered as a source of title, and affects nobody's rights except as a specifies of notice. Articles 334 and 335 of the Civil Code supply no absolute criterion for discriminating between real property and personal property for purpose of the application of the Chattel Mortgage Law. Those articles state rules which, considered as a general doctrine, are law in this jurisdiction; but it must not be forgotten that under given conditions property may have character different from that imputed to it in said articles. It is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property; and it is a familiar phenomenon to see things classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered personal property. Other situations are constantly arising, and from time to time are presented to this court, in which the proper classification of one thing or another as real or personal property may be said to be doubtful. The point submitted to us in this case was determined on September 8, 1914, in an administrative ruling promulgated by the Honorable James A. Ostrand, now a Justice of this Court, but acting at that time in the capacity of Judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District, in the City of Manila; and little of value can be here added to the observations contained in said ruling. We accordingly quote therefrom as follows: It is unnecessary here to determine whether or not the property described in the document in question is real or personal; the discussion may be confined to the point as to whether a register of deeds has authority to deny the registration of a document purporting to be a chattel mortgage and executed in the manner and form prescribed by the Chattel Mortgage Law. Then, after quoting section 5 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), his Honor continued: Based principally upon the provisions of section quoted the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, in an opinion dated August 11, 1909, held that a register of deeds has no authority to pass upon the capacity of the parties to a chattel mortgage which is presented to him for record. A fortiori a register of deeds can have no authority to pass upon the character of the property sought to be encumbered by a chattel mortgage. Of course, if the mortgaged property is real instead of personal the chattel mortgage would no doubt be held ineffective as against third parties, but this is a question to be determined by the courts of justice and not by the register of deeds. In Leung Yee vs. Frank L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson (37 Phil., 644), this court held that where the interest conveyed is of the nature of real, property, the placing of the

document on record in the chattel mortgage register is a futile act; but that decision is not decisive of the question now before us, which has reference to the function of the register of deeds in placing the document on record. In the light of what has been said it becomes unnecessary for us to pass upon the point whether the interests conveyed in the instrument now in question are real or personal; and we declare it to be the duty of the register of deeds to accept the estimate placed upon the document by the petitioner and to register it, upon payment of the proper fee. The demurrer is overruled; and unless within the period of five days from the date of the notification hereof, the respondent shall interpose a sufficient answer to the petition, the writ of mandamus will be issued, as prayed, but without costs. So ordered. G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958 petitioner,

SANTOS EVANGELISTA, vs. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent. Gonzalo D. David Raul A. Aristorenas and Benjamin Relova for respondent. CONCEPCION, J.: This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals. for

petitioner.

Briefly, the facts are: On June 4, 1949, petitioner herein, Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case No. 8235 of the Court of First, Instance of Manila entitled " Santos Evangelista vs. Ricardo Rivera," for a sum of money. On the same date, he obtained a writ of attachment, which levied upon a house, built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him, by filing copy of said writ and the corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, on June 8, 1949. In due course, judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who, on October 8, 1951, bought the house at public auction held in compliance with the writ of execution issued in said case. The corresponding definite deed of sale was issued to him on October 22, 1952, upon expiration of the period of redemption. When Evangelista sought to take possession of the house, Rivera refused to surrender it, upon the ground that he had leased the property from the Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. respondent herein and that the latter is now the true owner of said property. It appears that on May 10, 1952, a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to respondent, as the highest bidder at an auction sale held, on September 29, 1950, in compliance with a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 6268 of the same court, entitled "Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Maximo Quiambao, Rosario Guevara and Ricardo Rivera," in which judgment, for the sum of money, had been rendered in favor respondent herein, as plaintiff therein. Hence, on June 13, 1953, Evangelista instituted the present action against respondent and Ricardo Rivera, for the purpose of establishing his (Evangelista) title over said house, securing possession thereof, apart from recovering damages. In its answer, respondent alleged, in substance, that it has a better right to the house, because the sale made, and the definite deed of sale executed, in its favor, on September 29, 1950 and May 10, 1952, respectively, precede the sale to Evangelista (October 8, 1951) and the definite deed of sale in his favor (October 22, 1952). It, also, made some special defenses which are discussed hereafter. Rivera, in effect, joined forces with respondent. After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for

Evangelista, sentencing Rivera and respondent to deliver the house in question to petitioner herein and to pay him, jointly and severally, forty pesos (P40.00) a month from October, 1952, until said delivery, plus costs. On appeal taken by respondent, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which absolved said respondent from the complaint, upon the ground that, although the writ of attachment in favor of Evangelista had been filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila prior to the sale in favor of respondent, Evangelista did not acquire thereby a preferential lien, the attachment having been levied as if the house in question were immovable property, although in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, it is "ostensibly a personal property." As such, the Court of Appeals held, "the order of attachment . . . should have been served in the manner provided in subsection (e) of section 7 of Rule 59," of the Rules of Court, reading: The property of the defendant shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the following manner: (e) Debts and credits, and other personal property not capable of manual delivery, by leaving with the person owing such debts, or having in his possession or under his control, such credits or other personal property, or with, his agent, a copy of the order, and a notice that the debts owing by him to the defendant, and the credits and other personal property in his possession, or under his control, belonging to the defendant, are attached in pursuance of such order. (Emphasis ours.) However, the Court of Appeals seems to have been of the opinion, also, that the house of Rivera should have been attached in accordance with subsection (c) of said section 7, as "personal property capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping in his custody", for it declared that "Evangelists could not have . . . validly purchased Ricardo Rivera's house from the sheriff as the latter was not in possession thereof at the time he sold it at a public auction." Evangelista now seeks a review, by certiorari, of this decision of the Court of Appeals. In this connection, it is not disputed that although the sale to the respondent preceded that made to Evangelists, the latter would have a better right if the writ of attachment, issued in his favor before the sale to the respondent, had been properly executed or enforced. This question, in turn, depends upon whether the house of Ricardo Rivera is real property or not. In the affirmative case, the applicable provision would be subsection (a) of section 7, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, pursuant to which the attachment should be made "by filing with the registrar of deeds a copy of the order, together with a description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached, and by leaving a copy of such order, description, and notice with the occupant of the property, if any there be." Respondent maintains, however, and the Court of Appeals held, that Rivera's house is personal property, the levy upon which must be made in conformity with subsections (c) and (e) of said section 7 of Rule 59. Hence, the main issue before us is whether a house, constructed the lessee of the land on which it is built, should be dealt with, for purpose, of attachment, as immovable property, or as personal property. It is, our considered opinion that said house is not personal property, much less a debt, credit or other personal property not capable of manual delivery, but immovable property. As explicitly held, in Laddera vs. Hodges (48 Off. Gaz., 5374), "a true building (not merely superimposed on the soil) is immovable or real property, whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by usufructuary or lessee. This is the doctrine of our

Supreme Court in Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Company, 37 Phil., 644. And it is amply supported by the rulings of the French Court. . . ." It is true that the parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for purposes of said contract (Luna vs. Encarnacion, * 48 Off. Gaz., 2664; Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil., 630; De Jesus vs. Juan Dee Co., Inc., 72 Phil., 464). However, this view is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle of estoppel. Neither this principle, nor said view, is applicable to strangers to said contract. Much less is it in point where there has been no contract whatsoever, with respect to the status of the house involved, as in the case at bar. Apart from this, in Manarang vs. Ofilada (99 Phil., 108; 52 Off. Gaz., 3954), we held: The question now before us, however, is: Does the fact that the parties entering into a contract regarding a house gave said property the consideration of personal property in their contract, bind the sheriff in advertising the property's sale at public auction as personal property? It is to be remembered that in the case at bar the action was to collect a loan secured by a chattel mortgage on the house. It is also to be remembered that in practice it is the judgment creditor who points out to the sheriff the properties that the sheriff is to levy upon in execution, and the judgment creditor in the case at bar is the party in whose favor the owner of the house had conveyed it by way of chattel mortgage and, therefore, knew its consideration as personal property. These considerations notwithstanding, we hold that the rules on execution do not allow, and, we should not interpret them in such a way as to allow, the special consideration that parties to a contract may have desired to impart to real estate, for example, as personal property, when they are, not ordinarily so. Sales on execution affect the public and third persons. The regulation governing sales on execution are for public officials to follow. The form of proceedings prescribed for each kind of property is suited to its character, not to the character, which the parties have given to it or desire to give it. When the rules speak of personal property, property which is ordinarily so considered is meant; and when real property is spoken of, it means property which is generally known as real property. The regulations were never intended to suit the consideration that parties may have privately given to the property levied upon. Enforcement of regulations would be difficult were the convenience or agreement of private parties to determine or govern the nature of the proceedings. We therefore hold that the mere fact that a house was the subject of the chattel mortgage and was considered as personal property by the parties does not make said house personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale of public auction. This ruling is demanded by the need for a definite, orderly and well defined regulation for official and public guidance and would prevent confusion and misunderstanding. We, therefore, declare that the house of mixed materials levied upon on execution, although subject of a contract of chattel mortgage between the owner and a third person, is real property within the purview of Rule 39, section 16, of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture of the land, which, is real property. (42 Am. Jur. 199-200; Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644; Republic vs. Ceniza, et al., 90 Phil., 544; Ladera,, et al. vs. Hodges, et al., [C.A.] Off. Gaz. 5374.)" (Emphasis ours.) The foregoing considerations apply, with equal force, to the conditions for the levy of attachment, for it similarly affects the public and third persons.

It is argued, however, that, even if the house in question were immovable property, its attachment by Evangelista was void or ineffective, because, in the language of the Court of Appeals, "after presenting a Copy of the order of attachment in the Office of the Register of Deeds, the person who might then be in possession of the house, the sheriff took no pains to serve Ricardo Rivera, or other copies thereof." This finding of the Court of Appeals is neither conclusive upon us, nor accurate. The Record on Appeal, annexed to the petition for Certiorari, shows that petitioner alleged, in paragraph 3 of the complaint, that he acquired the house in question "as a consequence of the levy of an attachment and execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235" of the Court of First Instance of Manila. In his answer (paragraph 2), Ricardo Rivera admitted said attachment execution of judgment. He alleged, however, by way a of special defense, that the title of respondent "is superior to that of plaintiff because it is based on a public instrument," whereas Evangelista relied upon a "promissory note" which "is only a private instrument"; that said Public instrument in favor of respondent "is superior also to the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235"; and that plaintiff's claim against Rivera amounted only to P866, "which is much below the real value" of said house, for which reason it would be "grossly unjust to acquire the property for such an inadequate consideration." Thus, Rivera impliedly admitted that his house had been attached, that the house had been sold to Evangelista in accordance with the requisite formalities, and that said attachment was valid, although allegedly inferior to the rights of respondent, and the consideration for the sale to Evangelista was claimed to be inadequate. Respondent, in turn, denied the allegation in said paragraph 3 of the complaint, but only " for the reasons stated in its special defenses" namely: (1) that by virtue of the sale at public auction, and the final deed executed by the sheriff in favor of respondent, the same became the "legitimate owner of the house" in question; (2) that respondent "is a buyer in good faith and for value"; (3) that respondent "took possession and control of said house"; (4) that "there was no valid attachment by the plaintiff and/or the Sheriff of Manila of the property in question as neither took actual or constructive possession or control of the property at any time"; and (5) "that the alleged registration of plaintiff's attachment, certificate of sale and final deed in the Office of Register of Deeds, Manila, if there was any, is likewise, not valid as there is no registry of transactions covering houses erected on land belonging to or leased from another." In this manner, respondent claimed a better right, merely under the theory that, in case of double sale of immovable property, the purchaser who first obtains possession in good faith, acquires title, if the sale has not been "recorded . . . in the Registry of Property" (Art. 1544, Civil Code of the Philippines), and that the writ of attachment and the notice of attachment in favor of Evangelista should be considered unregistered, "as there is no registry of transactions covering houses erected on land belonging to or leased from another." In fact, said article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, governing double sales, was quoted on page 15 of the brief for respondent in the Court of Appeals, in support of its fourth assignment of error therein, to the effect that it "has preference or priority over the sale of the same property" to Evangelista. In other words, there was no issue on whether copy of the writ and notice of attachment had been served on Rivera. No evidence whatsoever, to the effect that Rivera had not been served with copies of said writ and notice, was introduced in the Court of First Instance. In its brief in the Court of Appeals, respondent did not aver, or even, intimate, that no such copies were served by the sheriff upon Rivera. Service thereof on Rivera had been impliedly admitted by the defendants, in their respective answers, and by their behaviour throughout the proceedings in the Court of First Instance, and, as regards respondent, in the Court of Appeals. In fact, petitioner asserts in his brief herein (p. 26) that copies of said writ and notice were delivered to Rivera, simultaneously with copies of the complaint, upon service of summons, prior to the filing of copies of said writ and notice with the register deeds, and the truth of this assertion has not been directly and positively challenged or denied in the brief filed before us by respondent herein. The

latter did not dare therein to go beyond making a statement for the first time in the course of these proceedings, begun almost five (5) years ago (June 18, 1953) reproducing substantially the aforementioned finding of the Court of Appeals and then quoting the same. Considering, therefore, that neither the pleadings, nor the briefs in the Court of Appeals, raised an issue on whether or not copies of the writ of attachment and notice of attachment had been served upon Rivera; that the defendants had impliedly admitted-in said pleadings and briefs, as well as by their conduct during the entire proceedings, prior to the rendition of the decision of the Court of Appeals that Rivera had received copies of said documents; and that, for this reason, evidently, no proof was introduced thereon, we, are of the opinion, and so hold that the finding of the Court of Appeals to the effect that said copies had not been served upon Rivera is based upon a misapprehension of the specific issues involved therein and goes beyond the range of such issues, apart from being contrary to the aforementioned admission by the parties, and that, accordingly, a grave abuse of discretion was committed in making said finding, which is, furthermore, inaccurate. Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Manila, with the costs of this instance against respondent, the Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. It is so ordered. G.R. No. L-11658 February 15, 1918

LEUNG YEE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY and J. G. WILLIAMSON, defendantsappellees. Booram and Mahoney Williams, Ferrier and SyCip for appellees. CARSON, J.: The "Compaia Agricola Filipina" bought a considerable quantity of rice-cleaning machinery company from the defendant machinery company, and executed a chattel mortgage thereon to secure payment of the purchase price. It included in the mortgage deed the building of strong materials in which the machinery was installed, without any reference to the land on which it stood. The indebtedness secured by this instrument not having been paid when it fell due, the mortgaged property was sold by the sheriff, in pursuance of the terms of the mortgage instrument, and was bought in by the machinery company. The mortgage was registered in the chattel mortgage registry, and the sale of the property to the machinery company in satisfaction of the mortgage was annotated in the same registry on December 29, 1913. A few weeks thereafter, on or about the 14th of January, 1914, the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" executed a deed of sale of the land upon which the building stood to the machinery company, but this deed of sale, although executed in a public document, was not registered. This deed makes no reference to the building erected on the land and would appear to have been executed for the purpose of curing any defects which might be found to exist in the machinery company's title to the building under the sheriff's certificate of sale. The machinery company went into possession of the building at or about the time when this sale took place, that is to say, the month of December, 1913, and it has continued in possession ever since. for appellant.

At or about the time when the chattel mortgage was executed in favor of the machinery company, the mortgagor, the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" executed another mortgage to the plaintiff upon the building, separate and apart from the land on which it stood, to secure payment of the balance of its indebtedness to the plaintiff under a contract for the construction of the building. Upon the failure of the mortgagor to pay the amount of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, the plaintiff secured judgment for that amount, levied execution upon the building, bought it in at the sheriff's sale on or about the 18th of December, 1914, and had the sheriff's certificate of the sale duly registered in the land registry of the Province of Cavite. At the time when the execution was levied upon the building, the defendant machinery company, which was in possession, filed with the sheriff a sworn statement setting up its claim of title and demanding the release of the property from the levy. Thereafter, upon demand of the sheriff, the plaintiff executed an indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff in the sum of P12,000, in reliance upon which the sheriff sold the property at public auction to the plaintiff, who was the highest bidder at the sheriff's sale. This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the building from the machinery company. The trial judge, relying upon the terms of article 1473 of the Civil Code, gave judgment in favor of the machinery company, on the ground that the company had its title to the building registered prior to the date of registry of the plaintiff's certificate. Article 1473 of the Civil Code is as follows: If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transfer to the person who may have the first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be personal property. Should it be real property, it shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the registry. Should there be no entry, the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The registry her referred to is of course the registry of real property, and it must be apparent that the annotation or inscription of a deed of sale of real property in a chattel mortgage registry cannot be given the legal effect of an inscription in the registry of real property. By its express terms, the Chattel Mortgage Law contemplates and makes provision for mortgages of personal property; and the sole purpose and object of the chattel mortgage registry is to provide for the registry of "Chattel mortgages," that is to say, mortgages of personal property executed in the manner and form prescribed in the statute. The building of strong materials in which the rice-cleaning machinery was installed by the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" was real property, and the mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as real property. It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage of the building and the machinery installed therein, not the annotation in that registry of the sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the building was concerned. We conclude that the ruling in favor of the machinery company cannot be sustained on the ground assigned by the trial judge. We are of opinion, however, that the judgment

must be sustained on the ground that the agreed statement of facts in the court below discloses that neither the purchase of the building by the plaintiff nor his inscription of the sheriff's certificate of sale in his favor was made in good faith, and that the machinery company must be held to be the owner of the property under the third paragraph of the above cited article of the code, it appearing that the company first took possession of the property; and further, that the building and the land were sold to the machinery company long prior to the date of the sheriff's sale to the plaintiff. It has been suggested that since the provisions of article 1473 of the Civil Code require "good faith," in express terms, in relation to "possession" and "title," but contain no express requirement as to "good faith" in relation to the "inscription" of the property on the registry, it must be presumed that good faith is not an essential requisite of registration in order that it may have the effect contemplated in this article. We cannot agree with this contention. It could not have been the intention of the legislator to base the preferential right secured under this article of the code upon an inscription of title in bad faith. Such an interpretation placed upon the language of this section would open wide the door to fraud and collusion. The public records cannot be converted into instruments of fraud and oppression by one who secures an inscription therein in bad faith. The force and effect given by law to an inscription in a public record presupposes the good faith of him who enters such inscription; and rights created by statute, which are predicated upon an inscription in a public registry, do not and cannot accrue under an inscription "in bad faith," to the benefit of the person who thus makes the inscription. Construing the second paragraph of this article of the code, the supreme court of Spain held in its sentencia of the 13th of May, 1908, that: This rule is always to be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first paragraph; therefore, it having been found that the second purchasers who record their purchase had knowledge of the previous sale, the question is to be decided in accordance with the following paragraph. (Note 2, art. 1473, Civ. Code, Medina and Maranon [1911] edition.) Although article 1473, in its second paragraph, provides that the title of conveyance of ownership of the real property that is first recorded in the registry shall have preference, this provision must always be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first paragraph; the legislator could not have wished to strike it out and to sanction bad faith, just to comply with a mere formality which, in given cases, does not obtain even in real disputes between third persons. (Note 2, art. 1473, Civ. Code, issued by the publishers of the La Revista de los Tribunales, 13th edition.) The agreed statement of facts clearly discloses that the plaintiff, when he bought the building at the sheriff's sale and inscribed his title in the land registry, was duly notified that the machinery company had bought the building from plaintiff's judgment debtor; that it had gone into possession long prior to the sheriff's sale; and that it was in possession at the time when the sheriff executed his levy. The execution of an indemnity bond by the plaintiff in favor of the sheriff, after the machinery company had filed its sworn claim of ownership, leaves no room for doubt in this regard. Having bought in the building at the sheriff's sale with full knowledge that at the time of the levy and sale the building had already been sold to the machinery company by the judgment debtor, the plaintiff cannot be said to have been a purchaser in good faith; and of course, the subsequent inscription of the sheriff's certificate of title must be held to have been tainted with the same defect. Perhaps we should make it clear that in holding that the inscription of the sheriff's certificate of sale to the plaintiff was not made in good faith, we should not be understood

as questioning, in any way, the good faith and genuineness of the plaintiff's claim against the "Compaia Agricola Filipina." The truth is that both the plaintiff and the defendant company appear to have had just and righteous claims against their common debtor. No criticism can properly be made of the exercise of the utmost diligence by the plaintiff in asserting and exercising his right to recover the amount of his claim from the estate of the common debtor. We are strongly inclined to believe that in procuring the levy of execution upon the factory building and in buying it at the sheriff's sale, he considered that he was doing no more than he had a right to do under all the circumstances, and it is highly possible and even probable that he thought at that time that he would be able to maintain his position in a contest with the machinery company. There was no collusion on his part with the common debtor, and no thought of the perpetration of a fraud upon the rights of another, in the ordinary sense of the word. He may have hoped, and doubtless he did hope, that the title of the machinery company would not stand the test of an action in a court of law; and if later developments had confirmed his unfounded hopes, no one could question the legality of the propriety of the course he adopted. But it appearing that he had full knowledge of the machinery company's claim of ownership when he executed the indemnity bond and bought in the property at the sheriff's sale, and it appearing further that the machinery company's claim of ownership was well founded, he cannot be said to have been an innocent purchaser for value. He took the risk and must stand by the consequences; and it is in this sense that we find that he was not a purchaser in good faith. One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defects as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be acquired of a prudent man in a like situation. Good faith, or lack of it, is in its analysis a question of intention; but in ascertaining the intention by which one is actuated on a given occasion, we are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. So it is that "the honesty of intention," "the honest lawful intent," which constitutes good faith implies a "freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry," and so it is that proof of such knowledge overcomes the presumption of good faith in which the courts always indulge in the absence of proof to the contrary. "Good faith, or the want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs." (Wilder vs. Gilman, 55 Vt., 504, 505; Cf. Cardenas Lumber Co. vs. Shadel, 52 La. Ann., 2094-2098; Pinkerton Bros. Co. vs. Bromley, 119 Mich., 8, 10, 17.) We conclude that upon the grounds herein set forth the disposing part of the decision and judgment entered in the court below should be affirmed with costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered. G.R. No. L-16218 November 29, 1962

appellants, vs. TOMASA TENEZA and BENJAMIN BARBOSA, defendants-appellees. Agripino Brillantes and Alberto Ernesto Parol for defendants-appellees. MAKALINTAL, J.: This case is before us on appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Abra dismissing the complaint filed by appellants, upon motion of defendants-appellate on the ground that the action was within the exclude (original) jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, of the same province. The complaint alleges in substance that appellants were the owners of the house, worth P200.00, built on and owned by them and situated in the said municipality Lagangilang; that sometime in January 1957 appealed forcibly demolished the house, claiming to be the owners thereof; that the materials of the house, after it was dismantled, were placed in the custody of the barrio lieutenant of the place; and that as a result of appellate's refusal to restore the house or to deliver the material appellants the latter have suffered actual damages the amount of P200.00, plus moral and consequential damages in the amount of P600.00. The relief prayed for is that "the plaintiffs be declared the owners of the house in question and/or the materials that resulted in (sic) its dismantling; (and) that the defendants be orders pay the sum of P200.00, plus P600.00 as damages, the costs." The issue posed by the parties in this appeal is whether the action involves title to real property, as appellants contend, and therefore is cognizable by the Court of First Instance (Sec. 44, par. [b], R.A. 296, as amended), whether it pertains to the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court, as stated in the order appealed from, since there is no real property litigated, the house having ceased to exist, and the amount of the demand does exceed P2,000.00 (Sec. 88, id.)1 The dismissal of the complaint was proper. A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built (Art. 415, par. 1, Civil Code). This classification holds true regardless of the fact that the house may be situated on land belonging to a different owner. But once the house is demolished, as in this case, it ceases to exist as such and hence its character as an immovable likewise ceases. It should be noted that the complaint here is for recovery of damages. This is the only positive relief prayed for by appellants. To be sure, they also asked that they be declared owners of the dismantled house and/or of the materials. However, such declaration in no wise constitutes the relief itself which if granted by final judgment could be enforceable by execution, but is only incidental to the real cause of action to recover damages. The order appealed from is affirmed. The appeal having been admitted in forma pauperis, no costs are adjudged. G.R. No. L-40411 August 7, 1935 B. Bravo for plaintiffs-appellants.

ANTONIA BICERRA, DOMINGO BICERRA, BERNARDO BICERRA, CAYETANO BICERRA, LINDA BICERRA, PIO BICERRA and EUFRICINA BICERRA, plaintiffs-

DAVAO SAW MILL CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. APRONIANO G. CASTILLO and DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., defendantsappellees.

Arsenio Suazo and Jose L. Palma Gil and Pablo Lorenzo and Delfin Joven for appellant. J.W. Ferrier for appellees. MALCOLM, J.: The issue in this case, as announced in the opening sentence of the decision in the trial court and as set forth by counsel for the parties on appeal, involves the determination of the nature of the properties described in the complaint. The trial judge found that those properties were personal in nature, and as a consequence absolved the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff. The Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the Government of the Philippine Islands. It has operated a sawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu, municipality of Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon which the business was conducted belonged to another person. On the land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the machinery used by it. Some of the implements thus used were clearly personal property, the conflict concerning machines which were placed and mounted on foundations of cement. In the contract of lease between the sawmill company and the owner of the land there appeared the following provision: That on the expiration of the period agreed upon, all the improvements and buildings introduced and erected by the party of the second part shall pass to the exclusive ownership of the party of the first part without any obligation on its part to pay any amount for said improvements and buildings; also, in the event the party of the second part should leave or abandon the land leased before the time herein stipulated, the improvements and buildings shall likewise pass to the ownership of the party of the first part as though the time agreed upon had expired: Provided, however, That the machineries and accessories are not included in the improvements which will pass to the party of the first part on the expiration or abandonment of the land leased. In another action, wherein the Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., was the plaintiff and the Davao, Saw, Mill Co., Inc., was the defendant, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in that action against the defendant in that action; a writ of execution issued thereon, and the properties now in question were levied upon as personalty by the sheriff. No third party claim was filed for such properties at the time of the sales thereof as is borne out by the record made by the plaintiff herein. Indeed the bidder, which was the plaintiff in that action, and the defendant herein having consummated the sale, proceeded to take possession of the machinery and other properties described in the corresponding certificates of sale executed in its favor by the sheriff of Davao. As connecting up with the facts, it should further be explained that the Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., has on a number of occasions treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. One of such persons is the appellee by assignment from the original mortgages. Article 334, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Civil Code, is in point. According to the Code, real property consists of 1. Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhering to the soil; xxx xxx xxx

5. Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade of industry. Appellant emphasizes the first paragraph, and appellees the last mentioned paragraph. We entertain no doubt that the trial judge and appellees are right in their appreciation of the legal doctrines flowing from the facts. In the first place, it must again be pointed out that the appellant should have registered its protest before or at the time of the sale of this property. It must further be pointed out that while not conclusive, the characterization of the property as chattels by the appellant is indicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. In this connection the decision of this court in the case of Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo ( [1923], 44 Phil., 630), whether obiter dicta or not, furnishes the key to such a situation. It is, however not necessary to spend overly must time in the resolution of this appeal on side issues. It is machinery which is involved; moreover, machinery not intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection therewith, but intended by a lessee for use in a building erected on the land by the latter to be returned to the lessee on the expiration or abandonment of the lease. A similar question arose in Puerto Rico, and on appeal being taken to the United States Supreme Court, it was held that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. In the opinion written by Chief Justice White, whose knowledge of the Civil Law is well known, it was in part said: To determine this question involves fixing the nature and character of the property from the point of view of the rights of Valdes and its nature and character from the point of view of Nevers & Callaghan as a judgment creditor of the Altagracia Company and the rights derived by them from the execution levied on the machinery placed by the corporation in the plant. Following the Code Napoleon, the Porto Rican Code treats as immovable (real) property, not only land and buildings, but also attributes immovability in some cases to property of a movable nature, that is, personal property, because of the destination to which it is applied. "Things," says section 334 of the Porto Rican Code, "may be immovable either by their own nature or by their destination or the object to which they are applicable." Numerous illustrations are given in the fifth subdivision of section 335, which is as follows: "Machinery, vessels, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenements for the industrial or works that they may carry on in any building or upon any land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works." (See also Code Nap., articles 516, 518 et seq. to and inclusive of article 534, recapitulating the things which, though in themselves movable, may be immobilized.) So far as the subject-matter with which we are dealing machinery placed in the plant it is plain, both under the provisions of the Porto Rican Law and of the Code Napoleon, that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant. Such result would not be accomplished, therefore, by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or a usufructuary or any person having only a temporary right. (Demolombe, Tit. 9, No. 203; Aubry et Rau, Tit. 2, p. 12, Section 164; Laurent, Tit. 5, No. 447; and decisions quoted in FuzierHerman ed. Code Napoleon under articles 522 et seq.) The distinction rests, as

pointed out by Demolombe, upon the fact that one only having a temporary right to the possession or enjoyment of property is not presumed by the law to have applied movable property belonging to him so as to deprive him of it by causing it by an act of immobilization to become the property of another. It follows that abstractly speaking the machinery put by the Altagracia Company in the plant belonging to Sanchez did not lose its character of movable property and become immovable by destination. But in the concrete immobilization took place because of the express provisions of the lease under which the Altagracia held, since the lease in substance required the putting in of improved machinery, deprived the tenant of any right to charge against the lessor the cost such machinery, and it was expressly stipulated that the machinery so put in should become a part of the plant belonging to the owner without compensation to the lessee. Under such conditions the tenant in putting in the machinery was acting but as the agent of the owner in compliance with the obligations resting upon him, and the immobilization of the machinery which resulted arose in legal effect from the act of the owner in giving by contract a permanent destination to the machinery. xxx xxx xxx

Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that the same are not realty. The Board of Tax Appeals of the City sustained the city assessor, so petitioner herein filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for the review of the assessment. In the Court of Tax Appeals the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts: Petitioner and respondents, thru their respective counsels agreed to the following stipulation of facts: 1. That petitioner is a public utility solely engaged in transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks, over its authorized lines in the Island of Mindanao, collecting rates approved by the Public Service Commission; 2. That petitioner has its main office and shop at Cagayan de Oro City. It maintains Branch Offices and/or stations at Iligan City, Lanao; Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur; Davao City and Kibawe, Bukidnon Province; 3. That the machineries sought to be assessed by the respondent as real properties are the following: (a) Hobart Electric Welder Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "A"; (b) Storm Boring Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "B"; (c) Lathe machine with motor, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "C"; (d) Black and Decker Grinder, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "D"; (e) PEMCO Hydraulic Press, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "E"; (f) Battery charger (Tungar charge machine) appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "F"; and (g) D-Engine Waukesha-M-Fuel, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "G".

The machinery levied upon by Nevers & Callaghan, that is, that which was placed in the plant by the Altagracia Company, being, as regards Nevers & Callaghan, movable property, it follows that they had the right to levy on it under the execution upon the judgment in their favor, and the exercise of that right did not in a legal sense conflict with the claim of Valdes, since as to him the property was a part of the realty which, as the result of his obligations under the lease, he could not, for the purpose of collecting his debt, proceed separately against. (Valdes vs. Central Altagracia [192], 225 U.S., 58.) Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, the costs of this instance to be paid by the appellant. G.R. No. L-17870 September 29, 1962

MINDANAO BUS COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE CITY ASSESSOR & TREASURER and the BOARD OF TAX APPEALS of Cagayan de Oro City, respondents. Binamira, Barria and Vicente E. Sabellina for respondents. Irabagon for petitioner.

LABRADOR, J.: This is a petition for the review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 710 holding that the petitioner Mindanao Bus Company is liable to the payment of the realty tax on its maintenance and repair equipment hereunder referred to. Respondent City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed at P4,400 petitioner's above-mentioned equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessment to the respondent

4. That these machineries are sitting on cement or wooden platforms as may be seen in the attached photographs which form part of this agreed stipulation of facts; 5. That petitioner is the owner of the land where it maintains and operates a garage for its TPU motor trucks; a repair shop; blacksmith and carpentry shops, and with these machineries which are placed therein, its TPU trucks are made; body constructed; and same are repaired in a condition to be serviceable in the TPU land transportation business it operates;

6. That these machineries have never been or were never used as industrial equipments to produce finished products for sale, nor to repair machineries, parts and the like offered to the general public indiscriminately for business or commercial purposes for which petitioner has never engaged in, to date.1awphl.nt The Court of Tax Appeals having sustained the respondent city assessor's ruling, and having denied a motion for reconsideration, petitioner brought the case to this Court assigning the following errors: 1. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding respondents' contention that the questioned assessments are valid; and that said tools, equipments or machineries are immovable taxable real properties. 2. The Tax Court erred in its interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code, and holding that pursuant thereto the movable equipments are taxable realties, by reason of their being intended or destined for use in an industry. 3. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's contention that the respondent City Assessor's power to assess and levy real estate taxes on machineries is further restricted by section 31, paragraph (c) of Republic Act No. 521; and 4. The Tax Court erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Respondents contend that said equipments, tho movable, are immobilized by destination, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code which provides: Art. 415. The following are immovable properties: xxx xxx xxx

existing therein, for its sugar and industry, converted them into real property by reason of their purpose, it cannot be said that their incorporation therewith was not permanent in character because, as essential and principle elements of a sugar central, without them the sugar central would be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established. Inasmuch as the central is permanent in character, the necessary machinery and equipment installed for carrying on the sugar industry for which it has been established must necessarily be permanent. (Emphasis ours.) So that movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of the law must first be "essential and principal elements" of an industry or works without which such industry or works would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established." We may here distinguish, therefore, those movable which become immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry for those which may not be so considered immobilized because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal. Thus, cash registers, typewriters, etc., usually found and used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc. are merely incidentals and are not and should not be considered immobilized by destination, for these businesses can continue or carry on their functions without these equity comments. Airline companies use forklifts, jeep-wagons, pressure pumps, IBM machines, etc. which are incidentals, not essentials, and thus retain their movable nature. On the other hand, machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of liquor and soft drinks, though movable in nature, are immobilized because they are essential to said industries; but the delivery trucks and adding machines which they usually own and use and are found within their industrial compounds are merely incidental and retain their movable nature. Similarly, the tools and equipments in question in this instant case are, by their nature, not essential and principle municipal elements of petitioner's business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals acquired as movables and used only for expediency to facilitate and/or improve its service. Even without such tools and equipments, its business may be carried on, as petitioner has carried on, without such equipments, before the war. The transportation business could be carried on without the repair or service shop if its rolling equipment is repaired or serviced in another shop belonging to another. The law that governs the determination of the question at issue is as follows: Art. 415. The following are immovable property: xxx xxx xxx

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. (Emphasis ours.) Note that the stipulation expressly states that the equipment are placed on wooden or cement platforms. They can be moved around and about in petitioner's repair shop. In the case of B. H. Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 663, the Supreme Court said: Article 344 (Now Art. 415), paragraph (5) of the Civil Code, gives the character of real property to "machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade or industry." If the installation of the machinery and equipment in question in the central of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., in lieu of the other of less capacity

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works; (Civil Code of the Phil.) Aside from the element of essentiality the above-quoted provision also requires that the industry or works be carried on in a building or on a piece of land. Thus in the case of Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, supra, the "machinery, liquid containers, and instruments or implements" are found in a building constructed on the land. A sawmill would also be installed in a building on land more or less permanently, and the sawing is conducted in the land or building.

But in the case at bar the equipments in question are destined only to repair or service the transportation business, which is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece of land, as demanded by the law. Said equipments may not, therefore, be deemed real property. Resuming what we have set forth above, we hold that the equipments in question are not absolutely essential to the petitioner's transportation business, and petitioner's business is not carried on in a building, tenement or on a specified land, so said equipment may not be considered real estate within the meaning of Article 415 (c) of the Civil Code. WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition for review is hereby set aside and the equipment in question declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the purposes of the real estate tax. Without costs. So ordered. G.R. No. L-58469 May 16, 1983 MAKATI LEASING and FINANCE CORPORATION, vs. WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC., and HONORABLE COURT OF respondents. Loreto C. Baduan for petitioner. Ramon D. Bagatsing & Assoc. (collaborating counsel) for petitioner. Jose V. Mancella for respondent. petitioner, APPEALS,

for judicial foreclosure with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, docketed as Civil Case No. 36040, the case before the lower court. Acting on petitioner's application for replevin, the lower court issued a writ of seizure, the enforcement of which was however subsequently restrained upon private respondent's filing of a motion for reconsideration. After several incidents, the lower court finally issued on February 11, 1981, an order lifting the restraining order for the enforcement of the writ of seizure and an order to break open the premises of private respondent to enforce said writ. The lower court reaffirmed its stand upon private respondent's filing of a further motion for reconsideration. On July 13, 1981, the sheriff enforcing the seizure order, repaired to the premises of private respondent and removed the main drive motor of the subject machinery. The Court of Appeals, in certiorari and prohibition proceedings subsequently filed by herein private respondent, set aside the Orders of the lower court and ordered the return of the drive motor seized by the sheriff pursuant to said Orders, after ruling that the machinery in suit cannot be the subject of replevin, much less of a chattel mortgage, because it is a real property pursuant to Article 415 of the new Civil Code, the same being attached to the ground by means of bolts and the only way to remove it from respondent's plant would be to drill out or destroy the concrete floor, the reason why all that the sheriff could do to enfore the writ was to take the main drive motor of said machinery. The appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that private respondent is estopped from claiming that the machine is real property by constituting a chattel mortgage thereon. A motion for reconsideration of this decision of the Court of Appeals having been denied, petitioner has brought the case to this Court for review by writ of certiorari. It is contended by private respondent, however, that the instant petition was rendered moot and academic by petitioner's act of returning the subject motor drive of respondent's machinery after the Court of Appeals' decision was promulgated. The contention of private respondent is without merit. When petitioner returned the subject motor drive, it made itself unequivocably clear that said action was without prejudice to a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision, as shown by the receipt duly signed by respondent's representative. 1 Considering that petitioner has reserved its right to question the propriety of the Court of Appeals' decision, the contention of private respondent that this petition has been mooted by such return may not be sustained. The next and the more crucial question to be resolved in this Petition is whether the machinery in suit is real or personal property from the point of view of the parties, with petitioner arguing that it is a personality, while the respondent claiming the contrary, and was sustained by the appellate court, which accordingly held that the chattel mortgage constituted thereon is null and void, as contended by said respondent. A similar, if not Identical issue was raised in Tumalad v. Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143 where this Court, speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, ruled: Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an

DE CASTRO, J.: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) promulgated on August 27, 1981 in CA-G.R. No. SP-12731, setting aside certain Orders later specified herein, of Judge Ricardo J. Francisco, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First instance of Rizal Branch VI, issued in Civil Case No. 36040, as wen as the resolution dated September 22, 1981 of the said appellate court, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. It appears that in order to obtain financial accommodations from herein petitioner Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation, the private respondent Wearever Textile Mills, Inc., discounted and assigned several receivables with the former under a Receivable Purchase Agreement. To secure the collection of the receivables assigned, private respondent executed a Chattel Mortgage over certain raw materials inventory as well as a machinery described as an Artos Aero Dryer Stentering Range. Upon private respondent's default, petitioner filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties mortgage to it. However, the Deputy Sheriff assigned to implement the foreclosure failed to gain entry into private respondent's premises and was not able to effect the seizure of the aforedescribed machinery. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint

inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendants-appellants merely had a temporary right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of the property, it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation that the parties, particularly the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as personality. Finally, unlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. & Plaza Theatre, Inc. & Leung Yee vs. F.L. Strong Machinery & Williamson, wherein third persons assailed the validity of the chattel mortgage, it is the defendants-appellants themselves, as debtors-mortgagors, who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in this case. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein defendants-appellants, having treated the subject house as personality. Examining the records of the instant case, We find no logical justification to exclude the rule out, as the appellate court did, the present case from the application of the abovequoted pronouncement. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage. In rejecting petitioner's assertion on the applicability of the Tumalad doctrine, the Court of Appeals lays stress on the fact that the house involved therein was built on a land that did not belong to the owner of such house. But the law makes no distinction with respect to the ownership of the land on which the house is built and We should not lay down distinctions not contemplated by law. It must be pointed out that the characterization of the subject machinery as chattel by the private respondent is indicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. As stated in Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property, as long as no interest of third parties would be prejudiced thereby. Private respondent contends that estoppel cannot apply against it because it had never represented nor agreed that the machinery in suit be considered as personal property but was merely required and dictated on by herein petitioner to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing. This contention lacks persuasiveness. As aptly pointed out by petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the status of the subject machinery as movable or immovable was never placed in issue before the lower court and the Court of Appeals except in a supplemental memorandum in support of the petition filed in the appellate court. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. On the other hand, as pointed out by petitioner and again not refuted by respondent, the latter has indubitably benefited from said contract. Equity dictates that one should not benefit at the expense of another. Private respondent could not now therefore, be allowed to impugn the efficacy of the chattel mortgage after it has benefited therefrom,

From what has been said above, the error of the appellate court in ruling that the questioned machinery is real, not personal property, becomes very apparent. Moreover, the case of Machinery and Engineering Supplies, Inc. v. CA, 96 Phil. 70, heavily relied upon by said court is not applicable to the case at bar, the nature of the machinery and equipment involved therein as real properties never having been disputed nor in issue, and they were not the subject of a Chattel Mortgage. Undoubtedly, the Tumalad case bears more nearly perfect parity with the instant case to be the more controlling jurisprudential authority. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby reversed and set aside, and the Orders of the lower court are hereby reinstated, with costs against the private respondent. SO ORDERED. [G.R. No. 137705. August 22, 2000] SERGS PRODUCTS, INC., and SERGIO T. GOQUIOLAY, petitioners, vs. PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: After agreeing to a contract stipulating that a real or immovable property be considered as personal or movable, a party is estopped from subsequently claiming otherwise. Hence, such property is a proper subject of a writ of replevin obtained by the other contracting party. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the January 6, 1999 Decision1[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)2[2] in CA-GR SP No. 47332 and its February 26, 1999 Resolution3[3] denying reconsideration. The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order dated February 18, 1998 and Resolution dated March 31, 1998 in Civil Case No. Q-98-33500 are hereby AFFIRMED. The writ of preliminary injunction issued on June 15, 1998 is hereby LIFTED.4[4] In its February 18, 1998 Order,5[5] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 218)6[6] issued a Writ of Seizure.7[7] The March 18, 1998 Resolution8[8] denied petitioners Motion for Special Protective Order, praying that the deputy sheriff be enjoined from seizing immobilized or other real properties in (petitioners) factory in Cainta, Rizal and to return to their original place whatever immobilized machineries or equipments he may have removed.9[9] The Facts The undisputed facts are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:10[10]

On February 13, 1998, respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCI Leasing for short) filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for [a] sum of money (Annex E), with an application for a writ of replevin docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-33500. On March 6, 1998, upon an ex-parte application of PCI Leasing, respondent judge issued a writ of replevin (Annex B) directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the machineries and equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary expenses. On March 24, 1998, in implementation of said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory, seized one machinery with [the] word that he [would] return for the other machineries. On March 25, 1998, petitioners filed a motion for special protective order (Annex C), invoking the power of the court to control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its processes, praying for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin. This motion was opposed by PCI Leasing (Annex F), on the ground that the properties [were] still personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin. In their Reply, petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seized [were] immovable as defined in Article 415 of the Civil Code, the parties agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. They argued that to give effect to the agreement would be prejudicial to innocent third parties. They further stated that PCI Leasing [was] estopped from treating these machineries as personal because the contracts in which the alleged agreement [were] embodied [were] totally sham and farcical. On April 6, 1998, the sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of the remaining properties. He was able to take two more, but was prevented by the workers from taking the rest. On April 7, 1998, they went to [the CA] via an original action for certiorari. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Citing the Agreement of the parties, the appellate court held that the subject machines were personal property, and that they had only been leased, not owned, by petitioners. It also ruled that the words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the true intention of the contracting parties. Observing that Petitioner Goquiolay was an experienced businessman who was not unfamiliar with the ways of the trade, it ruled that he should have realized the import of the document he signed. The CA further held: Furthermore, to accord merit to this petition would be to preempt the trial court in ruling upon the case below, since the merits of the whole matter are laid down before us via a petition whose sole purpose is to inquire upon the existence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [RTC] in issuing the assailed Order and Resolution. The issues raised herein are proper subjects of a full-blown trial, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The contract is being enforced by one, and [its] validity is attacked by the other a matter x x x which respondent court is in the best position to determine.

Hence, this Petition.11[11] The Issues In their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration: A. Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERGS became real property by virtue of immobilization. B. Whether or not the contract between the parties is a loan or a lease.12[12] In the main, the Court will resolve whether the said machines are personal, not immovable, property which may be a proper subject of a writ of replevin. As a preliminary matter, the Court will also address briefly the procedural points raised by respondent. The Courts Ruling The Petition is not meritorious.

Petition. In this light, the Court deems it proper to remove, motu proprio, the name of Judge Laqui from the caption of the present case. Main Issue: Nature of the Subject Machinery Petitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real property. Serious policy considerations, they argue, militate against a contrary characterization. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that writs of replevin are issued for the recovery of personal property only.15[15] Section 3 thereof reads: SEC. 3. Order. -- Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin describing the personal property alleged to be wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such property into his custody. On the other hand, Article 415 of the Civil Code enumerates immovable or real property as follows: ART. 415. The following are immovable property:

Preliminary Matter:Procedural Questions x x x....................................x x x....................................x x x Respondent contends that the Petition failed to indicate expressly whether it was being filed under Rule 45 or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It further alleges that the Petition erroneously impleaded Judge Hilario Laqui as respondent. There is no question that the present recourse is under Rule 45. This conclusion finds support in the very title of the Petition, which is Petition for Review on Certiorari.13[13] While Judge Laqui should not have been impleaded as a respondent,14[14] substantial justice requires that such lapse by itself should not warrant the dismissal of the present (5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works; x x x....................................x x x....................................x x x In the present case, the machines that were the subjects of the Writ of Seizure were placed by petitioners in the factory built on their own land. Indisputably, they were essential and principal elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence, although each of them was movable or personal property on its own, all of them have become immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the

industry.16[16] In that sense, petitioners are correct in arguing that the said machines are real, not personal, property pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code.17[17] Be that as it may, we disagree with the submission of the petitioners that the said machines are not proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal.18[18] After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein. Hence, in Tumalad v. Vicencio,19[19] the Court upheld the intention of the parties to treat a house as a personal property because it had been made the subject of a chattel mortgage. The Court ruled: x x x. Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. Applying Tumalad, the Court in Makati Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Wearever Textile Mills20[20] also held that the machinery used in a factory and essential to the industry, as in the present case, was a proper subject of a writ of replevin because it was treated as personal property in a contract. Pertinent portions of the Courts ruling are reproduced hereunder:

x x x. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage. In the present case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in question are to be considered as personal property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Agreement reads as follows:21[21] 12.1 The PROPERTY is, and shall at all times be and remain, personal property notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now be, or hereafter become, in any manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or permanently resting upon, real property or any building thereon, or attached in any manner to what is permanent. Clearly then, petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. It should be stressed, however, that our holding -- that the machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned.22[22] Hence, while the parties are bound by the Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation characterizing the subject machinery as personal.23[23] In any event, there is no showing that any specific third party would be adversely affected. Validity of the Lease Agreement In their Memorandum, petitioners contend that the Agreement is a loan and not a lease.24[24] Submitting documents supposedly showing that they own the subject

machines, petitioners also argue in their Petition that the Agreement suffers from intrinsic ambiguity which places in serious doubt the intention of the parties and the validity of the lease agreement itself.25[25] In their Reply to respondents Comment, they further allege that the Agreement is invalid.26[26] These arguments are unconvincing. The validity and the nature of the contract are the lis mota of the civil action pending before the RTC. A resolution of these questions, therefore, is effectively a resolution of the merits of the case. Hence, they should be threshed out in the trial, not in the proceedings involving the issuance of the Writ of Seizure. Indeed, in La Tondea Distillers v. CA,27[27] the Court explained that the policy under Rule 60 was that questions involving title to the subject property questions which petitioners are now raising -- should be determined in the trial. In that case, the Court noted that the remedy of defendants under Rule 60 was either to post a counter-bond or to question the sufficiency of the plaintiffs bond. They were not allowed, however, to invoke the title to the subject property. The Court ruled: In other words, the law does not allow the defendant to file a motion to dissolve or discharge the writ of seizure (or delivery) on ground of insufficiency of the complaint or of the grounds relied upon therefor, as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or injunction, and thereby put at issue the matter of the title or right of possession over the specific chattel being replevied, the policy apparently being that said matter should be ventilated and determined only at the trial on the merits.28[28] Besides, these questions require a determination of facts and a presentation of evidence, both of which have no place in a petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 or in a petition for review in this Court under Rule 45.29[29]

Reliance on the Lease Agreement It should be pointed out that the Court in this case may rely on the Lease Agreement, for nothing on record shows that it has been nullified or annulled. In fact, petitioners assailed it first only in the RTC proceedings, which had ironically been instituted by respondent. Accordingly, it must be presumed valid and binding as the law between the parties. Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation30[30] is also instructive on this point. In that case, the Deed of Chattel Mortgage, which characterized the subject machinery as personal property, was also assailed because respondent had allegedly been required to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing. The Court rejected the argument and relied on the Deed, ruling as follows: x x x. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. x x x Alleged Injustice Committed on the Part of Petitioners Petitioners contend that if the Court allows these machineries to be seized, then its workers would be out of work and thrown into the streets.31[31] They also allege that the seizure would nullify all efforts to rehabilitate the corporation. Petitioners arguments do not preclude the implementation of the Writ. As earlier discussed, law and jurisprudence support its propriety. Verily, the above-mentioned consequences, if they come true, should not be blamed on this Court, but on the petitioners for failing to avail themselves of the remedy under Section 5 of Rule 60, which allows the filing of a counter-bond. The provision states: SEC. 5. Return of property. -- If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicants bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot immediately require the return of the property, but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the property to the applicant, require the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a bond executed to the applicant, in double the value of the property as stated in the applicants affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the adverse party, and by serving a copy bond on the applicant.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-46245 May 31, 1982 MERALCO SECURITIES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LAGUNA and PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF LAGUNA, respondents.

San Pedro; 7473-7478, Cabuyao; 7967-7971, Sta. Rosa; 9882-9885, Bian and 1580615810, Calamba, containing the assessed values of portions of the pipeline. Meralco Securities appealed the assessments to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Laguna composed of the register of deeds as chairman and the provincial auditor as member. That board in its decision of June 18, 1975 upheld the assessments (pp. 47-49, Rollo). Meralco Securities brought the case to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. As already stated, that Board, composed of Acting Secretary of Finance Pedro M. Almanzor as chairman and Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Secretary of Local Government and Community Development Jose Roo as members, ruled that the pipeline is subject to realty tax (p. 40, Rollo). A copy of that decision was served on Meralco Securities' counsel on August 27, 1976. Section 36 of the Real Property Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 464, which took effect on June 1, 1974, provides that the Board's decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision by the appellant. Under Rule III of the amended rules of procedure of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (70 O.G. 10085), a party may ask for the reconsideration of the Board's decision within fifteen days after receipt. On September 7, 1976 (the eleventh day), Meralco Securities filed its motion for reconsideration. Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata and Secretary Roo (Secretary Abad Santos abstained) denied the motion in a resolution dated December 2, 1976, a copy of which was received by appellant's counsel on May 24, 1977 (p. 4, Rollo). On June 6, 1977, Meralco Securities filed the instant petition for certiorari. The Solicitor General contends that certiorari is not proper in this case because the Board acted within its jurisdiction and did not gravely abuse its discretion and Meralco Securities was not denied due process of law. Meralco Securities explains that because the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and because no judicial review of the Board's decision is provided for in the Real Property Tax Code, Meralco Securities' recourse is to file a petition for certiorari. We hold that certiorari was properly availed of in this case. It is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered to be elevated for review and correction in matters of law (14 C.J.S. 121-122; 14 Am Jur. 2nd 777). The rule is that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute (73 C.J.S. 506, note 56). "The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions" (73 C.J.S. 507, See. 165). The review is a part of the system of checks and balances which is a limitation on the separation of powers and which forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications.

AQUINO, J.: In this special civil action of certiorari, Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation assails the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (composed of the Secretary of Finance as chairman and the Secretaries of Justice and Local Government and Community Development as members) dated May 6, 1976, holding that Meralco Securities' oil pipeline is subject to realty tax. The record reveals that pursuant to a pipeline concession issued under the Petroleum Act of 1949, Republic Act No. 387, Meralco Securities installed from Batangas to Manila a pipeline system consisting of cylindrical steel pipes joined together and buried not less than one meter below the surface along the shoulder of the public highway. The portion passing through Laguna is about thirty kilometers long. The pipes for white oil products measure fourteen inches in diameter by thirty-six feet with a maximum capacity of 75,000 barrels daily. The pipes for fuel and black oil measure sixteen inches by forty-eight feet with a maximum capacity of 100,000 barrels daily. The pipes are embedded in the soil and are firmly and solidly welded together so as to preclude breakage or damage thereto and prevent leakage or seepage of the oil. The valves are welded to the pipes so as to make the pipeline system one single piece of property from end to end. In order to repair, replace, remove or transfer segments of the pipeline, the pipes have to be cold-cut by means of a rotary hard-metal pipe-cutter after digging or excavating them out of the ground where they are buried. In points where the pipeline traversed rivers or creeks, the pipes were laid beneath the bed thereof. Hence, the pipes are permanently attached to the land. However, Meralco Securities notes that segments of the pipeline can be moved from one place to another as shown in the permit issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications which permit provides that the government reserves the right to require the removal or transfer of the pipes by and at the concessionaire's expense should they be affected by any road repair or improvement. Pursuant to the Assessment Law, Commonwealth Act No. 470, the provincial assessor of Laguna treated the pipeline as real property and issued Tax Declarations Nos. 6535-6537,

Judicial review of the decision of an official or administrative agency exercising quasijudicial functions is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion or in case the administrative decision is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious (Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, L-37790, March 25, 1976, 70 SCRA 139, 158; San Miguel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, L-39195, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 56, 60, Mun. Council of Lemery vs. Prov. Board of Batangas, 56 Phil. 260, 268). The Central Board of Assessment Appeals, in confirming the ruling of the provincial assessor and the provincial board of assessment appeals that Meralco Securities' pipeline is subject to realty tax, reasoned out that the pipes are machinery or improvements, as contemplated in the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code; that they do not fall within the category of property exempt from realty tax under those laws; that articles 415 and 416 of the Civil Code, defining real and personal property, have no application to this case; that even under article 415, the steel pipes can be regarded as realty because they are constructions adhered to the soil and things attached to the land in a fixed manner and that Meralco Securities is not exempt from realty tax under the Petroleum Law (pp. 36-40). Meralco Securities insists that its pipeline is not subject to realty tax because it is not real property within the meaning of article 415. This contention is not sustainable under the provisions of the Assessment Law, the Real Property Tax Code and the Civil Code. Section 2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is due "on real property, including land, buildings, machinery, and other improvements" not specifically exempted in section 3 thereof. This provision is reproduced with some modification in the Real Property Tax Code which provides: SEC. 38. Incidence of Real Property Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real property, such as land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real property not hereinafter specifically exempted. * It is incontestable that the pipeline of Meralco Securities does not fall within any of the classes of exempt real property enumerated in section 3 of the Assessment Law and section 40 of the Real Property Tax Code. Pipeline means a line of pipe connected to pumps, valves and control devices for conveying liquids, gases or finely divided solids. It is a line of pipe running upon or in the earth, carrying with it the right to the use of the soil in which it is placed (Note 21[10],54 C.J.S. 561). Article 415[l] and [3] provides that real property may consist of constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil and everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object. The pipeline system in question is indubitably a construction adhering to the soil (Exh. B, p. 39, Rollo). It is attached to the land in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without dismantling the steel pipes which were welded to form the pipeline. Insofar as the pipeline uses valves, pumps and control devices to maintain the flow of oil, it is in a sense machinery within the meaning of the Real Property Tax Code.

It should be borne in mind that what are being characterized as real property are not the steel pipes but the pipeline system as a whole. Meralco Securities has apparently two pipeline systems. A pipeline for conveying petroleum has been regarded as real property for tax purposes (Miller County Highway, etc., Dist. vs. Standard Pipe Line Co., 19 Fed. 2nd 3; Board of Directors of Red River Levee Dist. No. 1 of Lafayette County, Ark vs. R. F. C., 170 Fed. 2nd 430; 50 C. J. 750, note 86). The other contention of Meralco Securities is that the Petroleum Law exempts it from the payment of realty taxes. The alleged exemption is predicated on the following provisions of that law which exempt Meralco Securities from local taxes and make it liable for taxes of general application: ART. 102. Work obligations, taxes, royalties not to be changed. Work obligations, special taxes and royalties which are fixed by the provisions of this Act or by the concession for any of the kinds of concessions to which this Act relates, are considered as inherent on such concessions after they are granted, and shall not be increased or decreased during the life of the concession to which they apply; nor shall any other special taxes or levies be applied to such concessions, nor shall 0concessionaires under this Act be subject to any provincial, municipal or other local taxes or levies; nor shall any sales tax be charged on any petroleum produced from the concession or portion thereof, manufactured by the concessionaire and used in the working of his concession. All such concessionaires, however, shall be subject to such taxes as are of general application in addition to taxes and other levies specifically provided in this Act. Meralco Securities argues that the realty tax is a local tax or levy and not a tax of general application. This argument is untenable because the realty tax has always been imposed by the lawmaking body and later by the President of the Philippines in the exercise of his lawmaking powers, as shown in section 342 et seq. of the Revised Administrative Code, Act No. 3995, Commonwealth Act No. 470 and Presidential Decree No. 464. The realty tax is enforced throughout the Philippines and not merely in a particular municipality or city but the proceeds of the tax accrue to the province, city, municipality and barrio where the realty taxed is situated (Sec. 86, P.D. No. 464). In contrast, a local tax is imposed by the municipal or city council by virtue of the Local Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 231, which took effect on July 1, 1973 (69 O.G. 6197). We hold that the Central Board of Assessment Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion, did not commit any error of law and acted within its jurisdiction in sustaining the holding of the provincial assessor and the local board of assessment appeals that Meralco Securities' pipeline system in Laguna is subject to realty tax. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution are affirmed. The petition is dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 168557 February 16, 2007

FELS ENERGY, vs. THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS and

INC.,

Petitioner,

pay all real estate taxes. It then gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any conference regarding the real property assessment of the Provincial Assessor. In a letter7 dated September 7, 1995, NPC sought reconsideration of the Provincial Assessors decision to assess real property taxes on the power barges. However, the motion was denied on September 22, 1995, and the Provincial Assessor advised NPC to pay the assessment.8 This prompted NPC to file a petition with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) for the setting aside of the assessment and the declaration of the barges as non-taxable items; it also prayed that should LBAA find the barges to be taxable, the Provincial Assessor be directed to make the necessary corrections.9 In its Answer to the petition, the Provincial Assessor averred that the barges were real property for purposes of taxation under Section 199(c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160. Before the case was decided by the LBAA, NPC filed a Manifestation, informing the LBAA that the Department of Finance (DOF) had rendered an opinion 10 dated May 20, 1996, where it is clearly stated that power barges are not real property subject to real property assessment. On August 26, 1996, the LBAA rendered a Resolution11 denying the petition. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. FELS is hereby ordered to pay the real estate tax in the amount of P56,184,088.40, for the year 1994. SO ORDERED.12 The LBAA ruled that the power plant facilities, while they may be classified as movable or personal property, are nevertheless considered real property for taxation purposes because they are installed at a specific location with a character of permanency. The LBAA also pointed out that the owner of the bargesFELS, a private corporationis the one being taxed, not NPC. A mere agreement making NPC responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments will not justify the exemption of FELS; such a privilege can only be granted to NPC and cannot be extended to FELS. Finally, the LBAA also ruled that the petition was filed out of time. Aggrieved, FELS appealed the LBAAs ruling to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA). On August 28, 1996, the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas City issued a Notice of Levy and Warrant by Distraint13 over the power barges, seeking to collect real property taxes amounting to P232,602,125.91 as of July 31, 1996. The notice and warrant was officially served to FELS on November 8, 1996. It then filed a Motion to Lift Levy dated November 14, 1996, praying that the Provincial Assessor be further restrained by the CBAA from enforcing the disputed assessment during the pendency of the appeal. On November 15, 1996, the CBAA issued an Order14 lifting the levy and distraint on the properties of FELS in order not to preempt and render ineffectual, nugatory and illusory any resolution or judgment which the Board would issue. Meantime, the NPC filed a Motion for Intervention15 dated August 7, 1998 in the proceedings before the CBAA. This was approved by the CBAA in an Order16 dated September 22, 1998.

THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, Respondents. x----------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 170628 February 16, 2007

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF BATANGAS, LAURO C. ANDAYA, in his capacity as the Assessor of the Province of Batangas, and the PROVINCE OF BATANGAS represented by its Provincial Assessor, Respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: Before us are two consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 168557 and G.R. No. 170628, which were filed by petitioners FELS Energy, Inc. (FELS) and National Power Corporation (NPC), respectively. The first is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the August 25, 2004 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and its Resolution2 dated June 20, 2005; the second, also a petition for review on certiorari, challenges the February 9, 2005 Decision3 and November 23, 2005 Resolution4 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. Both petitions were dismissed on the ground of prescription. The pertinent facts are as follows: On January 18, 1993, NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar Energy, Inc. over 3x30 MW diesel engine power barges moored at Balayan Bay in Calaca, Batangas. The contract, denominated as an Energy Conversion Agreement5 (Agreement), was for a period of five years. Article 10 reads: 10.1 RESPONSIBILITY. NAPOCOR shall be responsible for the payment of (a) all taxes, import duties, fees, charges and other levies imposed by the National Government of the Republic of the Philippines or any agency or instrumentality thereof to which POLAR may be or become subject to or in relation to the performance of their obligations under this agreement (other than (i) taxes imposed or calculated on the basis of the net income of POLAR and Personal Income Taxes of its employees and (ii) construction permit fees, environmental permit fees and other similar fees and charges) and (b) all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the Power Barges.6 Subsequently, Polar Energy, Inc. assigned its rights under the Agreement to FELS. The NPC initially opposed the assignment of rights, citing paragraph 17.2 of Article 17 of the Agreement. On August 7, 1995, FELS received an assessment of real property taxes on the power barges from Provincial Assessor Lauro C. Andaya of Batangas City. The assessed tax, which likewise covered those due for 1994, amounted to P56,184,088.40 per annum. FELS referred the matter to NPC, reminding it of its obligation under the Agreement to

During the pendency of the case, both FELS and NPC filed several motions to admit bond to guarantee the payment of real property taxes assessed by the Provincial Assessor (in the event that the judgment be unfavorable to them). The bonds were duly approved by the CBAA. On April 6, 2000, the CBAA rendered a Decision17 finding the power barges exempt from real property tax. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Batangas is hereby reversed. Respondent-appellee Provincial Assessor of the Province of Batangas is hereby ordered to drop subject property under ARP/Tax Declaration No. 01800958 from the List of Taxable Properties in the Assessment Roll. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas is hereby directed to act accordingly. SO ORDERED.18 Ruling in favor of FELS and NPC, the CBAA reasoned that the power barges belong to NPC; since they are actually, directly and exclusively used by it, the power barges are covered by the exemptions under Section 234(c) of R.A. No. 7160.19 As to the other jurisdictional issue, the CBAA ruled that prescription did not preclude the NPC from pursuing its claim for tax exemption in accordance with Section 206 of R.A. No. 7160. The Provincial Assessor filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by FELS and NPC. In a complete volte face, the CBAA issued a Resolution20 on July 31, 2001 reversing its earlier decision. The fallo of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the resolution of this Board that: (a) The decision of the Board dated 6 April 2000 is hereby reversed. (b) The petition of FELS, as well as the intervention of NPC, is dismissed. (c) The resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Batangas is hereby affirmed, (d) The real property tax assessment on FELS by the Provincial Assessor of Batangas is likewise hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED.21 FELS and NPC filed separate motions for reconsideration, which were timely opposed by the Provincial Assessor. The CBAA denied the said motions in a Resolution 22 dated October 19, 2001. Dissatisfied, FELS filed a petition for review before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. Meanwhile, NPC filed a separate petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. On January 17, 2002, NPC filed a Manifestation/Motion for Consolidation in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 praying for the consolidation of its petition with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. In a Resolution23 dated February 12, 2002, the appellate court directed NPC to re-file its

motion for consolidation with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491, since it is the ponente of the latter petition who should resolve the request for reconsideration. NPC failed to comply with the aforesaid resolution. On August 25, 2004, the Twelfth Division of the appellate court rendered judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 denying the petition on the ground of prescription. The decretal portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed Resolutions dated July 31, 2001 and October 19, 2001 of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.24 On September 20, 2004, FELS timely filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. Thereafter, NPC filed a petition for review dated October 19, 2004 before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165113, assailing the appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. The petition was, however, denied in this Courts Resolution25 of November 8, 2004, for NPCs failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in a Resolution26 dated January 19, 2005. Meantime, the appellate court dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. It held that the right to question the assessment of the Provincial Assessor had already prescribed upon the failure of FELS to appeal the disputed assessment to the LBAA within the period prescribed by law. Since FELS had lost the right to question the assessment, the right of the Provincial Government to collect the tax was already absolute. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration dated March 8, 2005, seeking reconsideration of the February 5, 2005 ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The motion was denied in a Resolution27 dated November 23, 2005. The motion for reconsideration filed by FELS in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 had been earlier denied for lack of merit in a Resolution28 dated June 20, 2005. On August 3, 2005, FELS filed the petition docketed as G.R. No. 168557 before this Court, raising the following issues: A. Whether power barges, which are floating and movable, are personal properties and therefore, not subject to real property tax. B. Assuming that the subject power barges are real properties, whether they are exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code ("LGC"). C.

Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are subject to real estate tax, whether or not it should be NPC which should be made to pay the same under the law. D. Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are real properties, whether or not the same is subject to depreciation just like any other personal properties. E. Whether the right of the petitioner to question the patently null and void real property tax assessment on the petitioners personal properties is imprescriptible.29 On January 13, 2006, NPC filed its own petition for review before this Court (G.R. No. 170628), indicating the following errors committed by the CA: I THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL TO THE LBAA WAS FILED OUT OF TIME. II THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE POWER BARGES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES. III THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE POWER BARGES WAS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.30 Considering that the factual antecedents of both cases are similar, the Court ordered the consolidation of the two cases in a Resolution31 dated March 8, 2006.1awphi1.net In an earlier Resolution dated February 1, 2006, the Court had required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within 30 days from notice. Almost a year passed but the parties had not submitted their respective memoranda. Considering that taxesthe lifeblood of our economyare involved in the present controversy, the Court was prompted to dispense with the said pleadings, with the end view of advancing the interests of justice and avoiding further delay. In both petitions, FELS and NPC maintain that the appeal before the LBAA was not timebarred. FELS argues that when NPC moved to have the assessment reconsidered on September 7, 1995, the running of the period to file an appeal with the LBAA was tolled. For its part, NPC posits that the 60-day period for appealing to the LBAA should be reckoned from its receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration. Petitioners contentions are bereft of merit.

Section 226 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides: SECTION 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal. We note that the notice of assessment which the Provincial Assessor sent to FELS on August 7, 1995, contained the following statement: If you are not satisfied with this assessment, you may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province by filing a petition under oath on the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of ARP/Tax Declaration and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.32 Instead of appealing to the Board of Assessment Appeals (as stated in the notice), NPC opted to file a motion for reconsideration of the Provincial Assessors decision, a remedy not sanctioned by law. The remedy of appeal to the LBAA is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of the property. It follows then that the determination made by the respondent Provincial Assessor with regard to the taxability of the subject real properties falls within its power to assess properties for taxation purposes subject to appeal before the LBAA.33 We fully agree with the rationalization of the CA in both CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and CAG.R. SP No. 67491. The two divisions of the appellate court cited the case of Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman,34 where we ruled that under Section 226 of R.A. No 7160,35 the last action of the local assessor on a particular assessment shall be the notice of assessment; it is this last action which gives the owner of the property the right to appeal to the LBAA. The procedure likewise does not permit the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor. The pertinent holding of the Court in Callanta is as follows: x x x [T]he same Code is equally clear that the aggrieved owners should have brought their appeals before the LBAA. Unfortunately, despite the advice to this effect contained in their respective notices of assessment, the owners chose to bring their requests for a review/readjustment before the city assessor, a remedy not sanctioned by the law. To allow this procedure would indeed invite corruption in the system of appraisal and assessment. It conveniently courts a graft-prone situation where values of real property may be initially set unreasonably high, and then subsequently reduced upon the request of a property owner. In the latter instance, allusions of a possible covert, illicit trade-off cannot be avoided, and in fact can conveniently take place. Such occasion for mischief must be prevented and excised from our system.36 For its part, the appellate court declared in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491: x x x. The Court announces: Henceforth, whenever the local assessor sends a notice to the owner or lawful possessor of real property of its revised assessed value, the former

shall no longer have any jurisdiction to entertain any request for a review or readjustment. The appropriate forum where the aggrieved party may bring his appeal is the LBAA as provided by law. It follows ineluctably that the 60-day period for making the appeal to the LBAA runs without interruption. This is what We held in SP 67490 and reaffirm today in SP 67491.37 To reiterate, if the taxpayer fails to appeal in due course, the right of the local government to collect the taxes due with respect to the taxpayers property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the period to appeal.38 It also bears stressing that the taxpayers failure to question the assessment in the LBAA renders the assessment of the local assessor final, executory and demandable, thus, precluding the taxpayer from questioning the correctness of the assessment, or from invoking any defense that would reopen the question of its liability on the merits.39 In fine, the LBAA acted correctly when it dismissed the petitioners appeal for having been filed out of time; the CBAA and the appellate court were likewise correct in affirming the dismissal. Elementary is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the period therefor is both mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure in this regard renders the decision final and executory.40 In the Comment filed by the Provincial Assessor, it is asserted that the instant petition is barred by res judicata; that the final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 165113 (where there was a final determination on the issue of prescription), effectively precludes the claims herein; and that the filing of the instant petition after an adverse judgment in G.R. No. 165113 constitutes forum shopping. FELS maintains that the argument of the Provincial Assessor is completely misplaced since it was not a party to the erroneous petition which the NPC filed in G.R. No. 165113. It avers that it did not participate in the aforesaid proceeding, and the Supreme Court never acquired jurisdiction over it. As to the issue of forum shopping, petitioner claims that no forum shopping could have been committed since the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are not present. We do not agree. Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.41 As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:42 x x x An existing final judgment or decree rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction acting upon a matter within its authority is conclusive on the rights of the parties and their privies. This ruling holds in all other actions or suits, in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction, touching on the points or matters in issue in the first suit. xxx

Courts will simply refuse to reopen what has been decided. They will not allow the same parties or their privies to litigate anew a question once it has been considered and decided with finality. Litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere. The effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same parties. This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.43 To recall, FELS gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any proceeding regarding real property assessment. Therefore, when petitioner NPC filed its petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 165113, it did so not only on its behalf but also on behalf of FELS. Moreover, the assailed decision in the earlier petition for review filed in this Court was the decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490, in which FELS was the petitioner. Thus, the decision in G.R. No. 165116 is binding on petitioner FELS under the principle of privity of interest. In fine, FELS and NPC are substantially "identical parties" as to warrant the application of res judicata. FELSs argument that it is not bound by the erroneous petition filed by NPC is thus unavailing. On the issue of forum shopping, we rule for the Provincial Assessor. Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action or certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.44 Petitioner FELS alleges that there is no forum shopping since the elements of res judicata are not present in the cases at bar; however, as already discussed, res judicata may be properly applied herein. Petitioners engaged in forum shopping when they filed G.R. Nos. 168557 and 170628 after the petition for review in G.R. No. 165116. Indeed, petitioners went from one court to another trying to get a favorable decision from one of the tribunals which allowed them to pursue their cases. It must be stressed that an important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.45 The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.46 Thus, there is forum shopping when there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.47

Having found that the elements of res judicata and forum shopping are present in the consolidated cases, a discussion of the other issues is no longer necessary. Nevertheless, for the peace and contentment of petitioners, we shall shed light on the merits of the case. As found by the appellate court, the CBAA and LBAA power barges are real property and are thus subject to real property tax. This is also the inevitable conclusion, considering that G.R. No. 165113 was dismissed for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error. Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, with the taxpayer having the burden of proving otherwise.48 Besides, factual findings of administrative bodies, which have acquired expertise in their field, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court; we will not assume to interfere with the sensible exercise of the judgment of men especially trained in appraising property. Where the judicial mind is left in doubt, it is a sound policy to leave the assessment undisturbed.49 We find no reason to depart from this rule in this case. In Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al. v. The City of New York, et al.,50 a power company brought an action to review property tax assessment. On the citys motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court of New York held that the barges on which were mounted gas turbine power plants designated to generate electrical power, the fuel oil barges which supplied fuel oil to the power plant barges, and the accessory equipment mounted on the barges were subject to real property taxation. Moreover, Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that "[d]ocks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast" are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are categorized as immovable property by destination, being in the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work.51 Petitioners maintain nevertheless that the power barges are exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160 because they are actually, directly and exclusively used by petitioner NPC, a government- owned and controlled corporation engaged in the supply, generation, and transmission of electric power. We affirm the findings of the LBAA and CBAA that the owner of the taxable properties is petitioner FELS, which in fine, is the entity being taxed by the local government. As stipulated under Section 2.11, Article 2 of the Agreement: OWNERSHIP OF POWER BARGES. POLAR shall own the Power Barges and all the fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site used in connection with the Power Barges which have been supplied by it at its own cost. POLAR shall operate, manage and maintain the Power Barges for the purpose of converting Fuel of NAPOCOR into electricity.52 It follows then that FELS cannot escape liability from the payment of realty taxes by invoking its exemption in Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160, which reads: SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: xxx

(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; x x x Indeed, the law states that the machinery must be actually, directly and exclusively used by the government owned or controlled corporation; nevertheless, petitioner FELS still cannot find solace in this provision because Section 5.5, Article 5 of the Agreement provides: OPERATION. POLAR undertakes that until the end of the Lease Period, subject to the supply of the necessary Fuel pursuant to Article 6 and to the other provisions hereof, it will operate the Power Barges to convert such Fuel into electricity in accordance with Part A of Article 7.53 It is a basic rule that obligations arising from a contract have the force of law between the parties. Not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the parties to the contract are bound by its terms and conditions.54 Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.55 The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.56 Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a taxable entity. The mere undertaking of petitioner NPC under Section 10.1 of the Agreement, that it shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, does not justify the exemption. The privilege granted to petitioner NPC cannot be extended to FELS. The covenant is between FELS and NPC and does not bind a third person not privy thereto, in this case, the Province of Batangas. It must be pointed out that the protracted and circuitous litigation has seriously resulted in the local governments deprivation of revenues. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its magnitude, acknowledging in its very nature no perimeter so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay for it.57 The right of local government units to collect taxes due must always be upheld to avoid severe tax erosion. This consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the autonomy of local governments58 and the objective of the Local Government Code that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to achieve their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.59 In conclusion, we reiterate that the power to tax is the most potent instrument to raise the needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of the local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people.60 WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED and the assailed Decisions and Resolutions AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 155076

January 13, 2009

telephone services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc. It maintains that the Amended Information charging petitioner with theft is valid and sufficient; that it states the names of all the accused who were specifically charged with the crime of theft of PLDTs international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service on or about September 10 to 19, 1999 in Makati City by conducting ISR or International Simple Resale; that it identifies the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service of PLDT as the personal properties which were unlawfully taken by the accused; and that it satisfies the test of sufficiency as it enabled a person of common understanding to know the charge against him and the court to render judgment properly. PLDT further insists that the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Codes definition of real and personal property. The enumeration of real properties in Article 415 of the Civil Code is exclusive such that all those not included therein are personal properties. Since Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code used the words "personal property" without qualification, it follows that all "personal properties" as understood in the context of the Civil Code, may be the subject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. PLDT alleges that the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be objects of theft. PLDT also argues that "taking" in relation to theft under the Revised Penal Code does not require "asportation," the sole requisite being that the object should be capable of "appropriation." The element of "taking" referred to in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code means the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of a movable coupled with the intention, at the time of the "taking," of withholding it with the character of permanency. There must be intent to appropriate, which means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. Thus, the term "personal properties" under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code is not limited to only personal properties which are "susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger quantity and of being transported from place to place." PLDT likewise alleges that as early as the 1930s, international telephone calls were in existence; hence, there is no basis for this Courts finding that the Legislature could not have contemplated the theft of international telephone calls and the unlawful transmission and routing of electronic voice signals or impulses emanating from such calls by unlawfully tampering with the telephone device as within the coverage of the Revised Penal Code. According to respondent, the "international phone calls" which are "electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver," are personal properties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3) of the Civil Code deems "forces of nature" (which includes electricity) which are brought under the control by science, are personal property. In his Comment to PLDTs motion for reconsideration, petitioner Laurel claims that a telephone call is a conversation on the phone or a communication carried out using the telephone. It is not synonymous to electric current or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as personal property susceptible of appropriation. Petitioner claims that the analogy between generated electricity and telephone calls is misplaced. PLDT does not produce or generate telephone calls. It only provides the facilities or services for the transmission and switching of the calls. He also insists that "business" is not personal property. It is not the "business" that is protected but the "right to carry on a business."

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL, Petitioner, vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 150, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES & PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY Respondents. RESOLUTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: On February 27, 2006, this Courts First Division rendered judgment in this case as follows: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court and the Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is directed to issue an order granting the motion of the petitioner to quash the Amended Information. SO ORDERED.1 By way of brief background, petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 992425, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. The Amended Information charged the accused with theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows: On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenae, and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount. CONTRARY TO LAW.2 Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)," on the ground that the factual allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft. The trial court denied the Motion to Quash the Amended Information, as well petitioners subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners special civil action for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with this Court. In the above-quoted Decision, this Court held that the Amended Information does not contain material allegations charging petitioner with theft of personal property since international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or

This right is what is considered as property. Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered as "property," the same may not be subject of theft. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with respondent PLDT that "international phone calls and the business or service of providing international phone calls" are subsumed in the enumeration and definition of personal property under the Civil Code hence, may be proper subjects of theft. It noted that the cases of United States v. Genato,3 United States v. Carlos4 and United States v. Tambunting,5 which recognized intangible properties like gas and electricity as personal properties, are deemed incorporated in our penal laws. Moreover, the theft provision in the Revised Penal Code was deliberately couched in broad terms precisely to be all-encompassing and embracing even such scenario that could not have been easily anticipated. According to the OSG, prosecution under Republic Act (RA) No. 8484 or the Access Device Regulations Act of 1998 and RA 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 does not preclude prosecution under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of theft. The latter embraces unauthorized appropriation or use of PLDTs international calls, service and business, for personal profit or gain, to the prejudice of PLDT as owner thereof. On the other hand, the special laws punish the surreptitious and advanced technical means employed to illegally obtain the subject service and business. Even assuming that the correct indictment should have been under RA 8484, the quashal of the information would still not be proper. The charge of theft as alleged in the Information should be taken in relation to RA 8484 because it is the elements, and not the designation of the crime, that control. Considering the gravity and complexity of the novel questions of law involved in this case, the Special First Division resolved to refer the same to the Banc. We resolve to grant the Motion for Reconsideration but remand the case to the trial court for proper clarification of the Amended Information. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters consent. The elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Prior to the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the definition of the term "personal property" in the penal code provision on theft had been established in Philippine jurisprudence. This Court, in United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Tambunting, consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft. Moreover, since the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the term "personal property" has had a generally accepted definition in civil law. In Article 335 of the Civil Code of Spain, "personal property" is defined as "anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property)." Thus, the term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context

of the Civil Code provisions in accordance with the rule on statutory construction that where words have been long used in a technical sense and have been judicially construed to have a certain meaning, and have been adopted by the legislature as having a certain meaning prior to a particular statute, in which they are used, the words used in such statute should be construed according to the sense in which they have been previously used.6 In fact, this Court used the Civil Code definition of "personal property" in interpreting the theft provision of the penal code in United States v. Carlos. Cognizant of the definition given by jurisprudence and the Civil Code of Spain to the term "personal property" at the time the old Penal Code was being revised, still the legislature did not limit or qualify the definition of "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code. Neither did it provide a restrictive definition or an exclusive enumeration of "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code, thereby showing its intent to retain for the term an extensive and unqualified interpretation.1avvphi1.zw+ Consequently, any property which is not included in the enumeration of real properties under the Civil Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the Revised Penal Code. The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code is that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is defined as "carrying away."7 Jurisprudence is settled that to "take" under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or carrying away.8 To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. 9 The word "take" in the Revised Penal Code includes any act intended to transfer possession which, as held in the assailed Decision, may be committed through the use of the offenders own hands, as well as any mechanical device, such as an access device or card as in the instant case. This includes controlling the destination of the property stolen to deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of a meter tampering, as held in Natividad v. Court of Appeals,10 use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, as held in United States v. Tambunting, and the use of a jumper to divert electricity, as held in the cases of United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Menagas.11 As illustrated in the above cases, appropriation of forces of nature which are brought under control by science such as electrical energy can be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for generating or measuring such forces of nature, wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus, or using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature. In the instant case, petitioner was charged with engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined. As early as 1910, the Court declared in Genato that ownership over electricity (which an international long distance call consists of), as well as telephone service, is protected by the provisions on theft of the Penal Code. The pertinent provision of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, which was involved in the said case, reads as follows: Injury to electric apparatus; Tapping current; Evidence. No person shall destroy, mutilate, deface, or otherwise injure or tamper with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service, nor tap or otherwise wrongfully deflect or take any electric current from such wire, meter, or other apparatus. No person shall, for any purpose whatsoever, use or enjoy the benefits of any device by means of which he may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or

telephone service; and the existence in any building premises of any such device shall, in the absence of satisfactory explanation, be deemed sufficient evidence of such use by the persons benefiting thereby. It was further ruled that even without the above ordinance the acts of subtraction punished therein are covered by the provisions on theft of the Penal Code then in force, thus: Even without them (ordinance), the right of the ownership of electric current is secured by articles 517 and 518 of the Penal Code; the application of these articles in cases of subtraction of gas, a fluid used for lighting, and in some respects resembling electricity, is confirmed by the rule laid down in the decisions of the supreme court of Spain of January 20, 1887, and April 1, 1897, construing and enforcing the provisions of articles 530 and 531 of the Penal Code of that country, articles 517 and 518 of the code in force in these islands. The acts of "subtraction" include: (a) tampering with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service; (b) tapping or otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric current from such wire, meter, or other apparatus; and (c) using or enjoying the benefits of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service. In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above. The business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is likewise personal property which can be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Business may be appropriated under Section 2 of Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence, could be object of theft: Section 2. Any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of a stock of goods, wares, merchandise, provisions, or materials otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade and the regular prosecution of the business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor, or any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of all, or substantially all, of the business or trade theretofore conducted by the vendor, mortgagor, transferor or assignor, or all, or substantially all, of the fixtures and equipment used in and about the business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor, shall be deemed to be a sale and transfer in bulk, in contemplation of the Act. x x x. In Strochecker v. Ramirez,12 this Court stated: With regard to the nature of the property thus mortgaged which is one-half interest in the business above described, such interest is a personal property capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties in article 335 of the Civil Code, and may be the subject of mortgage. Interest in business was not specifically enumerated as personal property in the Civil Code in force at the time the above decision was rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be personal property since it is capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties. Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or

personal property. Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated. Following the ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, business should also be classified as personal property. Since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is therefore personal property.13 As can be clearly gleaned from the above disquisitions, petitioners acts constitute theft of respondent PLDTs business and service, committed by means of the unlawful use of the latters facilities. In this regard, the Amended Information inaccurately describes the offense by making it appear that what petitioner took were the international long distance telephone calls, rather than respondent PLDTs business. A perusal of the records of this case readily reveals that petitioner and respondent PLDT extensively discussed the issue of ownership of telephone calls. The prosecution has taken the position that said telephone calls belong to respondent PLDT. This is evident from its Comment where it defined the issue of this case as whether or not "the unauthorized use or appropriation of PLDT international telephone calls, service and facilities, for the purpose of generating personal profit or gain that should have otherwise belonged to PLDT, constitutes theft."14 In discussing the issue of ownership, petitioner and respondent PLDT gave their respective explanations on how a telephone call is generated.15 For its part, respondent PLDT explains the process of generating a telephone call as follows: 38. The role of telecommunication companies is not limited to merely providing the medium (i.e. the electric current) through which the human voice/voice signal of the caller is transmitted. Before the human voice/voice signal can be so transmitted, a telecommunication company, using its facilities, must first break down or decode the human voice/voice signal into electronic impulses and subject the same to further augmentation and enhancements. Only after such process of conversion will the resulting electronic impulses be transmitted by a telecommunication company, again, through the use of its facilities. Upon reaching the destination of the call, the telecommunication company will again break down or decode the electronic impulses back to human voice/voice signal before the called party receives the same. In other words, a telecommunication company both converts/reconverts the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium for transmitting the same. 39. Moreover, in the case of an international telephone call, once the electronic impulses originating from a foreign telecommunication company country (i.e. Japan) reaches the Philippines through a local telecommunication company (i.e. private respondent PLDT), it is the latter which decodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e. electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call. Thus, it is not true that the foreign telecommunication company provides (1) the electric current which transmits the human voice/voice signal of the caller and (2) the electric current for the called party to receive said human voice/voice signal. 40. Thus, contrary to petitioner Laurels assertion, once the electronic impulses or electric current originating from a foreign telecommunication company (i.e. Japan) reaches private respondent PLDTs network, it is private respondent PLDT which decodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e. electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call. Without private respondent PLDTs network, the human voice/voice signal of the calling party will never reach the called party.16

In the assailed Decision, it was conceded that in making the international phone calls, the human voice is converted into electrical impulses or electric current which are transmitted to the party called. A telephone call, therefore, is electrical energy. It was also held in the assailed Decision that intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of appropriation because it may be taken and carried away. Electricity is personal property under Article 416 (3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates "forces of nature which are brought under control by science."17 Indeed, while it may be conceded that "international long distance calls," the matter alleged to be stolen in the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business. Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of "subtraction" penalized under said article. However, the Amended Information describes the thing taken as, "international long distance calls," and only later mentions "stealing the business from PLDT" as the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused. In order to correct this inaccuracy of description, this case must be remanded to the trial court and the prosecution directed to amend the Amended Information, to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the services and business of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, this amendment is not necessitated by a mistake in charging the proper offense, which would have called for the dismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To be sure, the crime is properly designated as one of theft. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and thus guaranteed of his rights under the Constitution. ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 27, 2006 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68841 affirming the Order issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, which denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 for theft, is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the trial court and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended Information to show that the property subject of the theft were services and business of the private offended party. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 18520 September 26, 1922 OF PAUL creditor STROCHECKER, and appellee, appellant.

ROMUALDEZ, J.: The question at issue in this appeal is, which of the two mortgages here in question must be given preference? Is it the one in favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co., or that in favor of Ildefonso Ramirez. The first was declared by the trial court to be entitled to preference. In the lower court there were three mortgagees each of whom claimed preference. They were the two above mentioned and Concepcion Ayala. The latter's claim was rejected by the trial court, and from that ruling she did not appeal. There is no question as to the priority in time of the mortgage in favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co. which was executed on March 10, 1919, and registered in due time in the registry of property, that in favor of the appellant being dated September 22, 1919, and registered also in the registry. The appellant claims preference on these grounds: (a) That the first mortgage abovementioned is not valid because the property which is the subject-matter thereof is not capable of being mortgaged, and the description of said property is not sufficient; and (b) that the amount due the appellant is a purchase price, citing article 1922 of the Civil Code in support thereof, and that his mortgage is but a modification of the security given by the debtor on February 15, 1919, that is, prior to the mortgage executed in favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co. As to the first ground, the thing that was mortgaged to this corporation is described in the document as follows: . . . his half interest in the drug business known as Antigua Botica Ramirez (owned by Srta. Dolores del Rosario and the mortgagor herein referred to as the partnership), located at Calle Real Nos. 123 and 125, District of Intramuros, Manila, Philippine Islands. With regard to the nature of the property thus mortgaged, which is one-half interest in the business above described, such interest is a personal property capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties in article 335 of the Civil Code, and may be the subject of mortgage. All personal property may be mortgaged. (Sec. 2, Act No. 1508.) The description contained in the document is sufficient. The law (sec. 7, Act No. 1508) requires only a description of the following nature: The description of the mortgaged property shall be such as to enable the parties to the mortgage, or any other person, after reasonable inquiry and investigation, to identify the same. Turning to the second error assigned, numbers 1, 2, and 3 of article 1922 of the Civil Code invoked by the appellant are not applicable. Neither he, as debtor, nor the debtor himself, is in possession of the property mortgaged, which is, and since the registration of the mortgage has been, legally in possession of the Fidelity & Surety Co. (Sec. 4, Act No. 1508; Meyers vs. Thein, 15 Phil., 303.) In no way can the mortgage executed in favor of the appellant on September 22, 1919, be given effect as of February 15, 1919, the date of the sale of the drug store in question.

INVOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY vs. ILDEFONSO RAMIREZ, WILLIAM EDMONDS, assignee.

Lim & Lim for Ross & Lawrence and Antonio T. Carrascoso, jr., for the Fidelity & Surety Co.

appellant.

On the 15th of February of that year, there was a stipulation about a persons security, but not a mortgage upon any property, and much less upon the property in question. Moreover, the appellant cannot deny the preferential character of the mortgage in favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co. because in the very document executed in his favor it was stated that his mortgage was a second mortgage, subordinate to the one made in favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co. The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered. G.R. No. L-61311 September 2l, 1987 FELICIDAD VILLANUEVA, FERNANDO CAISIP, ANTONIO LIANG, FELINA MIRANDA, RICARDO PUNO, FLORENCIO LAXA, and RENE OCAMPO, petitioners, vs. HON. MARIANO CASTAEDA, JR., Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch III, VICENTE A. MACALINO, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Mayor, San Fernando, Pampanga, respondents.

Association of Concerned Citizens and Consumers of San Fernando filed a petition for the immediate implementation of Resolution No. 29, to restore the subject property "to its original and customary use as a public plaza. 8 Acting thereon after an investigation conducted by the municipal attorney, 9 respondent Vicente A. Macalino, as officer-in-charge of the office of the mayor of San Fernando, issued on June 14, 1982, a resolution requiring the municipal treasurer and the municipal engineer to demolish the stalls in the subject place beginning July 1, 1982. 10 The reaction of the petitioners was to file a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, docketed as Civil Case No. 6470, on June 26, 1982. The respondent judge denied the petition on July 19, 1982, 11 and the motion for reconsideration on August 5, 1982, 12 prompting the petitioners to come to this Court on certiorari to challenge his decision. 13 As required, respondent Macalino filed his comment 14 on the petition, and the petitioners countered with their reply. 15 In compliance with our resolution of February 2, 1983, the petitioners submitted their memorandum 16 and respondent Macalino, for his part, asked that his comment be considered his memorandum. 17 On July 28, 1986, the new officer-in-charge of the office of the mayor of San Fernando, Paterno S. Guevarra, was impleaded in lieu of Virgilio Sanchez, who had himself earlier replaced the original respondent Macalino. 18 After considering the issues and the arguments raised by the parties in their respective pleadings, we rule for the respondents. The petition must be dismissed. There is no question that the place occupied by the petitioners and from which they are sought to be evicted is a public plaza, as found by the trial court in Civil Case No. 2040. This finding was made after consideration of the antecedent facts as especially established by the testimony of former San Fernando Mayor Rodolfo Hizon, who later became governor of Pampanga, that the National Planning Commission had reserved the area for a public plaza as early as 1951. This intention was reiterated in 1964 through the adoption of Resolution No. 29. 19 It does not appear that the decision in this case was appealed or has been reversed. In Civil Case G.R. No. 6740, which is the subject of this petition, the respondent judge saw no reason to disturb the finding in Civil Case No. 2040 and indeed used it as a basis for his own decision sustaining the questioned order. 20 The basic contention of the petitioners is that the disputed area is under lease to them by virtue of contracts they had entered into with the municipal government, first in 1961 insofar as the original occupants were concerned, and later with them and the other petitioners by virtue of the space allocations made in their favor in 1971 for which they saw they are paying daily fees. 21 The municipal government has denied making such agreements. In any case, they argue, since the fees were collected daily, the leases, assuming their validity, could be terminated at will, or any day, as the claimed rentals indicated that the period of the leases was from day to day. 22 The parties belabor this argument needlessly. A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking. This is elementary. Indeed, this point was settled as early as in Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 23 decided in 1915, where the Court declared as null and void the lease of a public plaza of the said municipality in favor of a private person.

CRUZ, J.: There is in the vicinity of the public market of San Fernando, Pampanga, along Mercado Street, a strip of land measuring 12 by 77 meters on which stands a conglomeration of vendors stalls together forming what is commonly known as a talipapa. This is the subject of the herein petition. The petitioners claim they have a right to remain in and conduct business in this area by virtue of a previous authorization granted to them by the municipal government. The respondents deny this and justify the demolition of their stalls as illegal constructions on public property. At the petitioners' behest, we have issued a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo between the parties pending our decision. 1 Now we shall rule on the merits. This dispute goes back to November 7, 1961, when the municipal council of San Fernando adopted Resolution No. 218 authorizing some 24 members of the Fernandino United Merchants and Traders Association to construct permanent stags and sell in the abovementioned place. 2 The action was protested on November 10, 1961, in Civil Case No. 2040, where the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch 2, issued a writ of preliminary injunction that prevented the defendants from constructing the said stalls until final resolution of the controversy. 3 On January 18, 1964, while this case was pending, the municipal council of San Fernando adopted Resolution G.R. No. 29, which declared the subject area as "the parking place and as the public plaza of the municipality, 4 thereby impliedly revoking Resolution No. 218, series of 1961. Four years later, on November 2, 1968, Judge Andres C. Aguilar decided the aforesaid case and held that the land occupied by the petitioners, being public in nature, was beyond the commerce of man and therefore could not be the subject of private occupancy. 5 The writ of preliminary injunction was made permanent. 6 The decision was apparently not enforced, for the petitioners were not evicted from the place; in fact, according to then they and the 128 other persons were in 1971 assigned specific areas or space allotments therein for which they paid daily fees to the municipal government. 7 The problem appears to have festered for some more years under a presumably uneasy truce among the protagonists, none of whom made any move, for some reason that does not appear in the record. Then, on January 12, 1982, the

Justice Torres said in that case: According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or provinces. The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do. The Civil Code, article 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1895, which says: "communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc." Therefore, it must be concluded that the contract, Exhibit C, whereby the municipality of Cavite leased to Hilaria Rojas a portion of the Plaza Soledad is null and void and of no force or effect, because it is contrary to the law and the thing leased cannot be the object of a was held that the City of contract. In Muyot vs. de la Fuente, 24 it was held that the City of Manila could not lease a portion of a public sidewalk on Plaza Sta. Cruz, being likewise beyond the commerce of man. Echoing Rojas, the decision said: Appellants claim that they had obtained permit from the present of the City of Manila, to connect booths Nos. 1 and 2, along the premises in question, and for the use of spaces where the booths were constructed, they had paid and continued paying the corresponding rentals. Granting this claim to be true, one should not entertain any doubt that such permit was not legal, because the City of Manila does not have any power or authority at all to lease a portion of a public sidewalk. The sidewalk in question, forming part of the public plaza of Sta. Cruz, could not be a proper subject matter of the contract, as it was not within the commerce of man (Article 1347, new Civil Code, and article 1271, old Civil Code). Any contract entered into by the City of Manila in connection with the sidewalk, is ipso facto null and ultra vires. (Municipality of Cavite vs. Roxas, et a1, 30 Phil. 603.) The sidewalk in question was intended for and was used by the public, in going from one place to another. "The streets and public places of the city shall be kept free and clear for the use of the public, and the sidewalks and crossings for the pedestrians, and the same shall only be used or occupied for other purpose as provided by ordinance or regulation; ..." (Sec. 1119, Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila.) The booths in question served as fruit stands for their owners and

often, if not always, blocked the fire passage of pedestrians who had to take the plaza itself which used to be clogged with vehicular traffic. Exactly in point is Espiritu vs. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, Court declared:
25

where the Supreme

There is absolutely no question that the town plaza cannot be used for the construction of market stalls, specially of residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general They are outside the common of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. Applying this well-settled doctrine, we rule that the petitioners had no right in the first place to occupy the disputed premises and cannot insist in remaining there now on the strength of their alleged lease contracts. They should have realized and accepted this earlier, considering that even before Civil Case No. 2040 was decided, the municipalcouncil of San Fernando had already adopted Resolution No. 29, series of 1964, declaring the area as the parking place and public plaza of the municipality. It is the decision in Civil Case No. 2040 and the said resolution of the municipal council of San Fernando that respondent Macalino was seeking to enforce when he ordered the demolition of the stags constructed in the disputed area. As officer-in-charge of the office of the mayor, he had the duty to clear the area and restore it to its intended use as a parking place and public plaza of the municipality of San Fernando, conformably to the aforementioned orders from the court and the council. It is, therefore, not correct to say that he had acted without authority or taken the law into his hands in issuing his order. Neither can it be said that he acted whimsically in exercising his authority for it has been established that he directed the demolition of the stalls only after, upon his instructions, the municipal attorney had conducted an investigation, to look into the complaint filed by the Association of Concerned Citizens and Consumers of San Fernando. 26 There is evidence that the petitioners were notified of this hearing, 27which they chose to disregard. Photographs of the disputed area, 28 which does look congested and ugly, show that the complaint was valid and that the area really needed to be cleared, as recommended by the municipal attorney. The Court observes that even without such investigation and recommendation, the respondent mayor was justified in ordering the area cleared on the strength alone of its status as a public plaza as declared by the judicial and legislative authorities. In calling first for the investigation (which the petitioner saw fit to boycott), he was just scrupulously paying deference to the requirements of due process, to remove an taint of arbitrariness in the action he was caged upon to take. Since the occupation of the place in question in 1961 by the original 24 stallholders (whose number later ballooned to almost 200), it has deteriorated increasingly to the great prejudice of the community in general. The proliferation of stags therein, most of them makeshift and of flammable materials, has converted it into a veritable fire trap, which, added to the fact that it obstructs access to and from the public market itself, has seriously endangered public safety. The filthy condition of the talipapa, where fish and other wet items are sold, has aggravated health and sanitation problems, besides pervading the place with a foul odor that has spread into the surrounding areas. The entire place is unsightly, to the dismay and embarrassment of the inhabitants, who want it converted into a showcase of the town of which they can all be proud. The vendors in

the talipapa have also spilled into the street and obstruct the flow of traffic, thereby impairing the convenience of motorists and pedestrians alike. The regular stallholders in the public market, who pay substantial rentals to the municipality, are deprived of a sizable volume of business from prospective customers who are intercepted by the talipapa vendors before they can reach the market proper. On top of all these, the people are denied the proper use of the place as a public plaza, where they may spend their leisure in a relaxed and even beautiful environment and civic and other communal activities of the town can be held. The problems caused by the usurpation of the place by the petitioners are covered by the police power as delegated to the municipality under the general welfare clause. 29 This authorizes the municipal council "to enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein." This authority was validly exercised in this casethrough the adoption of Resolution No. 29, series of 1964, by the municipal council of San Fernando. Even assuming a valid lease of the property in dispute, the resolution could have effectively terminated the agreement for it is settled that the police power cannot be surrendered or bargained away through the medium of a contract. 30 In fact, every contract affecting the public interest suffers a congenital infirmity in that it contains an implied reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal order. 31 This power can be activated at any time to change the provisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or protection of the general welfare. Such an act will not militate against the impairment clause, which is subject to and limited by the paramount police power. 32 We hold that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for prohibition. On the contrary, he acted correctly in sustaining the right and responsibility of the mayor to evict the petitioners from the disputed area and clear it of an the structures illegally constructed therein. The Court feels that it would have been far more amiable if the petitioners themselves, recognizing their own civic duty, had at the outset desisted from their original stance and withdrawn in good grace from the disputed area to permit its peaceful restoration as a public plaza and parking place for the benefit of the whole municipality. They owned this little sacrifice to the community in general which has suffered all these many years because of their intransigence. Regrettably, they have refused to recognize that in the truly democratic society, the interests of the few should yield to those of the greater number in deference to the principles that the welfare of the people is the supreme law and overriding purpose. We do not see any altruism here. The traditional ties of sharing are absent here. What we find, sad to say, is a cynical disdaining of the spirit of "bayanihan," a selfish rejection of the cordial virtues of "pakikisama " and "pagbibigayan" which are the hallmarks of our people. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The decision dated July 19, 1982, and the order-dated August 5, 1982, are AFFIRMED. The temporary restraining order dated August 9, 1982, is LIFTED. This decision is immediately executory. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents. G.R. No. 92047 July 25, 1990 DIONISIO S. OJEDA, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS PRIVATIZATION TRUST CHAIRMAN RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON DEL ROSARIO, et al., as members of the PRINCIPAL AND BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION PETITION OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN JAPAN, respondents. Arturo M. Tolentino for petitioner in 92013.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at 306 Roppongi, 5-Chome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan scheduled on February 21, 1990. We granted the prayer for a temporary restraining order effective February 20, 1990. One of the petitioners (in G.R. No. 92047) likewise prayes for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to fully disclose to the public the basis of their decision to push through with the sale of the Roppongi property inspire of strong public opposition and to explain the proceedings which effectively prevent the participation of Filipino citizens and entities in the bidding process. The oral arguments in G.R. No. 92013, Laurel v. Garcia, et al. were heard by the Court on March 13, 1990. After G.R. No. 92047, Ojeda v. Secretary Macaraig, et al. was filed, the respondents were required to file a comment by the Court's resolution dated February 22, 1990. The two petitions were consolidated on March 27, 1990 when the memoranda of the parties in the Laurel case were deliberated upon. The Court could not act on these cases immediately because the respondents filed a motion for an extension of thirty (30) days to file comment in G.R. No. 92047, followed by a second motion for an extension of another thirty (30) days which we granted on May 8, 1990, a third motion for extension of time granted on May 24, 1990 and a fourth motion for extension of time which we granted on June 5, 1990 but calling the attention of the respondents to the length of time the petitions have been pending. After the comment was filed, the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 asked for thirty (30) days to file a reply. We noted his motion and resolved to decide the two (2) cases. I

The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9, 1956, the other lots being: (1) The Nampeidai Property at 11-24 Nampeidai-machi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo which has an area of approximately 2,489.96 square meters, and is at present the site of the Philippine Embassy Chancery; (2) The Kobe Commercial Property at 63 Naniwa-cho, Kobe, with an area of around 764.72 square meters and categorized as a commercial lot now being used as a warehouse and parking lot for the consulate staff; and (3) The Kobe Residential Property at 1-980-2 Obanoyama-cho, Shinohara, Nadaku, Kobe, a residential lot which is now vacant. The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the Japanese government for national development projects are part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II. The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at $550 million would be payable in twenty (20) years in accordance with annual schedules of procurements to be fixed by the Philippine and Japanese governments (Article 2, Reparations Agreement). Rep. Act No. 1789, the Reparations Law, prescribes the national policy on procurement and utilization of reparations and development loans. The procurements are divided into those for use by the government sector and those for private parties in projects as the then National Economic Council shall determine. Those intended for the private sector shall be made available by sale to Filipino citizens or to one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities in national development projects. The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year Schedule and listed under the heading "Government Sector", through Reparations Contract No. 300 dated June 27, 1958. The Roppongi property consists of the land and building "for the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy" (Annex M-D to Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 503). As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained undeveloped since that time. A proposal was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino by former Philippine Ambassador to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to make the property the subject of a lease agreement with a Japanese firm - Kajima Corporation which shall construct two (2) buildings in Roppongi and one (1) building in Nampeidai and renovate the present Philippine Chancery in Nampeidai. The consideration of the construction would be the lease to the foreign corporation of one (1) of the buildings to be constructed in Roppongi and the two (2) buildings in Nampeidai. The other building in Roppongi shall then be used as the Philippine Embassy Chancery. At the end of the lease period, all the three leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the Philippine government. No change of ownership or title shall occur. (See Annex "B" to Reply to Comment) The Philippine government retains the title all throughout the lease period and thereafter. However, the government has not acted favorably on this proposal which is pending approval and ratification between the parties. Instead, on August 11,

1986, President Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan through Administrative Order No. 3, followed by Administrative Orders Numbered 3-A, B, C and D. On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296 entitling nonFilipino citizens or entities to avail of separations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. The four properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the first "Whereas" clause. Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been pushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The property has twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price of $225 million. The first bidding was a failure since only one bidder qualified. The second one, after postponements, has not yet materialized. The last scheduled bidding on February 21, 1990 was restrained by his Court. Later, the rules on bidding were changed such that the $225 million floor price became merely a suggested floor price. The Court finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct issues. The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property to anyone while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the Philippine government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and entities. These petitions have been consolidated and are resolved at the same time for the objective is the same - to stop the sale of the Roppongi property. The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 raises the following issues: (1) Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine Government?; and (2) Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property? Petitioner Dionisio Ojeda in G.R. No. 92047, apart from questioning the authority of the government to alienate the Roppongi property assails the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296 in making the property available for sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities. He also questions the bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization or Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan for being discriminatory against Filipino citizens and Filipino-owned entities by denying them the right to be informed about the bidding requirements. II In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property and the related lots were acquired as part of the reparations from the Japanese government for diplomatic and consular use by the Philippine government. VicePresident Laurel states that the Roppongi property is classified as one of public dominion, and not of private ownership under Article 420 of the Civil Code (See infra).

The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under "property intended for public service" in paragraph 2 of the above provision. He states that being one of public dominion, no ownership by any one can attach to it, not even by the State. The Roppongi and related properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic, and consular quarters, buildings and other improvements" (Second Year Reparations Schedule). The petitioner states that they continue to be intended for a necessary service. They are held by the State in anticipation of an opportune use. (Citing 3 Manresa 65-66). Hence, it cannot be appropriated, is outside the commerce of man, or to put it in more simple terms, it cannot be alienated nor be the subject matter of contracts (Citing Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 20 [1915]). Noting the non-use of the Roppongi property at the moment, the petitioner avers that the same remains property of public dominion so long as the government has not used it for other purposes nor adopted any measure constituting a removal of its original purpose or use. The respondents, for their part, refute the petitioner's contention by saying that the subject property is not governed by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the property is located. They rely upon the rule of lex situs which is used in determining the applicable law regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the title to a property. They also invoke Opinion No. 21, Series of 1988, dated January 27, 1988 of the Secretary of Justice which used the lex situs in explaining the inapplicability of Philippine law regarding a property situated in Japan. The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument that the Civil Code is applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of public dominion. It has become patrimonial property because it has not been used for public service or for diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article 422, Civil Code) and because the intention by the Executive Department and the Congress to convert it to private use has been manifested by overt acts, such as, among others: (1) the transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai (2) the issuance of administrative orders for the possibility of alienating the four government properties in Japan; (3) the issuance of Executive Order No. 296; (4) the enactment by the Congress of Rep. Act No. 6657 [the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] on June 10, 1988 which contains a provision stating that funds may be taken from the sale of Philippine properties in foreign countries; (5) the holding of the public bidding of the Roppongi property but which failed; (6) the deferment by the Senate in Resolution No. 55 of the bidding to a future date; thus an acknowledgment by the Senate of the government's intention to remove the Roppongi property from the public service purpose; and (7) the resolution of this Court dismissing the petition in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., G.R. No. 87478 which sought to enjoin the second bidding of the Roppongi property scheduled on March 30, 1989. III In G.R. No. 94047, petitioner Ojeda once more asks this Court to rule on the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. He had earlier filed a petition in G.R. No. 87478 which the Court dismissed on August 1, 1989. He now avers that the executive order contravenes the constitutional mandate to conserve and develop the national patrimony stated in the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution. It also allegedly violates:

(1) The reservation of the ownership and acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens. (Sections 2 and 3, Article XII, Constitution; Sections 22 and 23 of Commonwealth Act 141).itc-asl (2) The preference for Filipino citizens in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony (Section 10, Article VI, Constitution); (3) The protection given to Filipino enterprises against unfair competition and trade practices; (4) The guarantee of the right of the people to information on all matters of public concern (Section 7, Article III, Constitution); (5) The prohibition against the sale to non-Filipino citizens or entities not wholly owned by Filipino citizens of capital goods received by the Philippines under the Reparations Act (Sections 2 and 12 of Rep. Act No. 1789); and (6) The declaration of the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest (Section 28, Article III, Constitution). Petitioner Ojeda warns that the use of public funds in the execution of an unconstitutional executive order is a misapplication of public funds He states that since the details of the bidding for the Roppongi property were never publicly disclosed until February 15, 1990 (or a few days before the scheduled bidding), the bidding guidelines are available only in Tokyo, and the accomplishment of requirements and the selection of qualified bidders should be done in Tokyo, interested Filipino citizens or entities owned by them did not have the chance to comply with Purchase Offer Requirements on the Roppongi. Worse, the Roppongi shall be sold for a minimum price of $225 million from which price capital gains tax under Japanese law of about 50 to 70% of the floor price would still be deducted. IV The petitioners and respondents in both cases do not dispute the fact that the Roppongi site and the three related properties were through reparations agreements, that these were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was specifically designated under the Reparations Agreement to house the Philippine Embassy. The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government. There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. This, the respondents have failed to do. As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective

needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropration. (Taken from 3 Manresa, 6669; cited in Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963 Edition, Vol. II, p. 26). The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are: ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. ART. 420. The following things are property of public dominion (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks shores roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service. Has the intention of the government regarding the use of the property been changed because the lot has been Idle for some years? Has it become patrimonial? The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]). The respondents enumerate various pronouncements by concerned public officials insinuating a change of intention. We emphasize, however, that an abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.

A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the failure by the government to repair the building in Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier stated, there simply was a shortage of government funds. The recent Administrative Orders authorizing a study of the status and conditions of government properties in Japan were merely directives for investigation but did not in any way signify a clear intention to dispose of the properties. Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an "authority to sell", does not have a provision in its text expressly authorizing the sale of the four properties procured from Japan for the government sector. The executive order does not declare that the properties lost their public character. It merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition. It merely eliminates the restriction under Rep. Act No. 1789 that reparations goods may be sold only to Filipino citizens and one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities. The text of Executive Order No. 296 provides: Section 1. The provisions of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended, and of other laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the above-mentioned properties can be made available for sale, lease or any other manner of disposition to non-Filipino citizens or to entities owned by non-Filipino citizens. Executive Order No. 296 is based on the wrong premise or assumption that the Roppongi and the three other properties were earlier converted into alienable real properties. As earlier stated, Rep. Act No. 1789 differentiates the procurements for the government sector and the private sector (Sections 2 and 12, Rep. Act No. 1789). Only the private sector properties can be sold to endusers who must be Filipinos or entities owned by Filipinos. It is this nationality provision which was amended by Executive Order No. 296. Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657 (the CARP Law) which provides as one of the sources of funds for its implementation, the proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, did not withdraw the Roppongi property from being classified as one of public dominion when it mentions Philippine properties abroad. Section 63 (c) refers to properties which are alienable and not to those reserved for public use or service. Rep Act No. 6657, therefore, does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property. It merely enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment (as and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Executive Order No. 299. Obviously any property outside of the commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds. The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the Roppongi property by insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil Code should apply. It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all people, should be the ones to insist that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese law and not Philippine law should prevail. The Japanese law - its coverage and effects, when enacted, and exceptions to its provision is not presented to the Court It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law should apply without stating what that law provides. It is a ed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.

We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute over the title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined (See Salonga, Private International Law, 1981 ed., pp. 377-383); and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need to determine which law should apply. In the instant case, none of the above elements exists. The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply. The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of Justice sheds light on the relevance of the lex situs rule is misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienability of the real properties procured through reparations nor the existence in what body of the authority to sell them. In discussing who are capable of acquiring the lots, the Secretary merely explains that it is the foreign law which should determine who can acquire the properties so that the constitutional limitation on acquisition of lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens and entities wholly owned by Filipinos is inapplicable. We see no point in belaboring whether or not this opinion is correct. Why should we discuss who can acquire the Roppongi lot when there is no showing that it can be sold? The subsequent approval on October 4, 1988 by President Aquino of the recommendation by the investigating committee to sell the Roppongi property was premature or, at the very least, conditioned on a valid change in the public character of the Roppongi property. Moreover, the approval does not have the force and effect of law since the President already lost her legislative powers. The Congress had already convened for more than a year. Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the Roppongi property is no longer of public dominion, there is another obstacle to its sale by the respondents. There is no law authorizing its conveyance. Section 79 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 provides Section 79 (f ) Conveyances and contracts to which the Government is a party. In cases in which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a party to any deed or other instrument conveying the title to real estate or to any other property the value of which is in excess of one hundred thousand pesos, the respective Department Secretary shall prepare the necessary papers which, together with the proper recommendations, shall be submitted to the Congress of the Philippines for approval by the same. Such deed, instrument, or contract shall be executed and signed by the President of the

Philippines on behalf of the Government of the Philippines unless the Government of the Philippines unless the authority therefor be expressly vested by law in another officer. (Emphasis supplied) The requirement has been retained in Section 48, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292). SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: (1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer. (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied) It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence. Resolution No. 55 of the Senate dated June 8, 1989, asking for the deferment of the sale of the Roppongi property does not withdraw the property from public domain much less authorize its sale. It is a mere resolution; it is not a formal declaration abandoning the public character of the Roppongi property. In fact, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is conducting hearings on Senate Resolution No. 734 which raises serious policy considerations and calls for a fact-finding investigation of the circumstances behind the decision to sell the Philippine government properties in Japan. The resolution of this Court in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., supra, did not pass upon the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. Contrary to respondents' assertion, we did not uphold the authority of the President to sell the Roppongi property. The Court stated that the constitutionality of the executive order was not the real issue and that resolving the constitutional question was "neither necessary nor finally determinative of the case." The Court noted that "[W]hat petitioner ultimately questions is the use of the proceeds of the disposition of the Roppongi property." In emphasizing that "the decision of the Executive to dispose of the Roppongi property to finance the CARP ... cannot be questioned" in view of Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657, the Court did not acknowledge the fact that the property became alienable nor did it indicate that the President was authorized to dispose of the Roppongi property. The resolution should be read to mean that in case the Roppongi property is re-classified to be patrimonial and alienable by authority of law, the proceeds of a sale may be used for national economic development projects including the CARP.

Moreover, the sale in 1989 did not materialize. The petitions before us question the proposed 1990 sale of the Roppongi property. We are resolving the issues raised in these petitions, not the issues raised in 1989. Having declared a need for a law or formal declaration to withdraw the Roppongi property from public domain to make it alienable and a need for legislative authority to allow the sale of the property, we see no compelling reason to tackle the constitutional issues raised by petitioner Ojeda. The Court does not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions unless these questions are properly raised in appropriate cases and their resolution is necessary for the determination of the case (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]). The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground such as the application of a statute or general law (Siler v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, [1909], Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 [1941]). The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 states why the Roppongi property should not be sold: The Roppongi property is not just like any piece of property. It was given to the Filipino people in reparation for the lives and blood of Filipinos who died and suffered during the Japanese military occupation, for the suffering of widows and orphans who lost their loved ones and kindred, for the homes and other properties lost by countless Filipinos during the war. The Tokyo properties are a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the Filipino people in the face of an invader; like the monuments of Rizal, Quezon, and other Filipino heroes, we do not expect economic or financial benefits from them. But who would think of selling these monuments? Filipino honor and national dignity dictate that we keep our properties in Japan as memorials to the countless Filipinos who died and suffered. Even if we should become paupers we should not think of selling them. For it would be as if we sold the lives and blood and tears of our countrymen. (Rollo- G.R. No. 92013, p.147) The petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 also states: Roppongi is no ordinary property. It is one ceded by the Japanese government in atonement for its past belligerence for the valiant sacrifice of life and limb and for deaths, physical dislocation and economic devastation the whole Filipino people endured in World War II. It is for what it stands for, and for what it could never bring back to life, that its significance today remains undimmed, inspire of the lapse of 45 years since the war ended, inspire of the passage of 32 years since the property passed on to the Philippine government. Roppongi is a reminder that cannot should not be dissipated ... (Rollo-92047, p. 9)

It is indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated prices fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all Filipinos veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and related properties will eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the President and Congress must concur. Considering the properties' importance and value, the laws on conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan. The February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order is made PERMANENT. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L40474 August 29, 1975 CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. PASCUAL A. BERCILLES Presiding Judge, Branch XV, 14th Judicial District, and JOSE L. ESPELETA, Assistant Provincial Fiscal, Province of Cebu, representing the Solicitor General's Office and the Bureau of Lands, respondents. Jose Antonio R Conde for petitioner. Office of the Acting Solicitor General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General Octavio R. Ramirez and Trial Attorney David R. Hilario for respondents. .

CONCEPCION, Jr., J.: This is a petition for the review of the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissing petitioner's application for registration of title over a parcel of land situated in the City of Cebu. The parcel of land sought to be registered was only a portion of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City. On September 23, 1968, the City Council of Cebu, through Resolution No. 2193, approved on October 3, 1968, declared the terminal portion of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City, as an abandoned road, the same not being included in the City Development Plan. 1 Subsequently, on December 19, 1968, the City Council of Cebu passed Resolution No. 2755, authorizing the Acting City Mayor to sell the land through a public bidding. 2 Pursuant thereto, the lot was awarded to the herein petitioner being the highest bidder and on March 3, 1969, the City of Cebu, through the Acting City Mayor, executed a deed of absolute sale to the herein petitioner for a total consideration of P10,800.00. 3 By virtue of the aforesaid deed of absolute sale, the petitioner filed an application with the Court of First instance of Cebu to have its title to the land registered.
4

On June 26, 1974, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that the property sought to be registered being a public road intended for public use is considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man. Consequently, it cannot be subject to registration by any private individual. 5 After hearing the parties, on October 11, 1974 the trial court issued an order dismissing the petitioner's application for registration of title. 6 Hence, the instant petition for review. For the resolution of this case, the petitioner poses the following questions: (1) Does the City Charter of Cebu City (Republic Act No. 3857) under Section 31, paragraph 34, give the City of Cebu the valid right to declare a road as abandoned? and (2) Does the declaration of the road, as abandoned, make it the patrimonial property of the City of Cebu which may be the object of a common contract? (1) The pertinent portions of the Revised Charter of Cebu City provides: Section 31. Legislative Powers. Any provision of law and executive order to the contrary notwithstanding, the City Council shall have the following legislative powers: xxx xxx xxx (34) ...; to close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed. From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city road or street. In the case of Favis vs. City of Baguio, 7 where the power of the city Council of Baguio City to close city streets and to vacate or withdraw the same from public use was similarly assailed, this court said: 5. So it is, that appellant may not challenge the city council's act of withdrawing a strip of Lapu-Lapu Street at its dead end from public use and converting the remainder thereof into an alley. These are acts well within the ambit of the power to close a city street. The city council, it would seem to us, is the authority competent to determine whether or not a certain property is still necessary for public use. Such power to vacate a street or alley is discretionary. And the discretion will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered with by the courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or collusion. Faithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. So the fact that some private interests may be served incidentally will not invalidate the vacation ordinance.

(2) Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner's application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract. Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." Besides, the Revised Charter of the City of Cebu heretofore quoted, in very clear and unequivocal terms, states that: "Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed." Accordingly, the withdrawal of the property in question from public use and its subsequent sale to the petitioner is valid. Hence, the petitioner has a registerable title over the lot in question. WHEREFORE, the order dated October 11, 1974, rendered by the respondent court in Land Reg. Case No. N-948, LRC Rec. No. N-44531 is hereby set aside, and the respondent court is hereby ordered to proceed with the hearing of the petitioner's application for registration of title. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960

FAUSTINO IGNACIO, applicant-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and LAUREANO VALERIANO, oppositors-appellees. Acting Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Crispin V. Bautista for appellee Director of Lands. Benjamin H. Aquino for appellee Laureano Veleriano. MONTEMAYOR, J.: Faustino Ignacio is appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dismissing his application for the registration of a parcel of land. On January 25, 1950, Ignacio filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land (mangrove), situated in barrio Gasac, Navotas, Rizal, with an area of 37,877 square meters. Later, he amended his application by alleging among others that he owned the parcel applied for by right of accretion. To the application, the Director of Lands, Laureano Valeriano and Domingo Gutierrez filed oppositions. Gutierrez later withdrew his opposition. The Director of Lands claimed the parcel applied for as a portion of the public domain, for the reason that neither the applicant nor his predecessor-in-interest possessed sufficient title thereto, not having acquired it either by composition title from the Spanish government or by possessory information title under the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and that he had not possessed the same openly, continuously and adversely under a bona fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894. In his turn, Valeriano alleged he was holding the land by virtue of a permit granted him by the Bureau of Fisheries, issued on January 13, 1947, and approved by the President.

It is not disputed that the land applied for adjoins a parcel owned by the applicant which he had acquired from the Government by virtue of a free patent title in 1936. It has also been established that the parcel in question was formed by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the Manila Bay which boarders it on the southwest. Applicant Ignacio claims that he had occupied the land since 1935, planting it with api-api trees, and that his possession thereof had been continuous, adverse and public for a period of twenty years until said possession was distributed by oppositor Valeriano. On the other hand, the Director of Lands sought to prove that the parcel is foreshore land, covered by the ebb and flow of the tide and, therefore, formed part of the public domain. After hearing, the trial court dismissed the application, holding that the parcel formed part of the public domain. In his appeal, Ignacio assigns the following errors: I. The lower court erred in holding that the land in question, altho an accretion to the land of the applicant-appellant, does not belong to him but forms part of the public domain. II. Granting that the land in question forms part of the public domain, the lower court nevertheless erred in not declaring the same to be the necessary for any public use or purpose and in not ordering in the present registration proceedings. III. The lower court erred in not holding that the land in question now belongs to the applicant-appellant by virtue of acquisitive prescription, the said land having ceased to be of the public domain and became the private or patrimonial property of the State. IV. The lower court erred in not holding that the oppositor Director of Lands is now in estoppel from claiming the land in question as a land of the public domain. Appellant contends that the parcel belongs to him by the law of accretion, having been formed by gradual deposit by action of the Manila Bay, and he cites Article 457 of the New Civil Code (Article 366, Old Civil Code), which provides that: To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. The article cited is clearly inapplicable because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks of rivers, while the accretion in the present case was caused by action of the Manila Bay. Appellant next contends that Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the Law of Waters are not applicable because they refer to accretions formed by the sea, and that Manila Bay cannot be considered as a sea. We find said contention untenable. A bay is a part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same: Bay. An opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides except at the entrance; an inlet of the sea; an arm of the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a lake. 7 C.J. 1013-1014 (Cited in Francisco, Philippine Law of Waters and Water Rights p. 6)

Moreover, this Tribunal has some cases applied the Law of Waters on Lands bordering Manila Bay. (See the cases of Ker & Co. vs. Cauden, 6 Phil., 732, involving a parcel of land bounded on the sides by Manila Bay, where it was held that such land formed by the action of the sea is property of the State; Francisco vs. Government of the P.I., 28 Phil., 505, involving a land claimed by a private person and subject to the ebb and flow of the tides of the Manila Bay). Then the applicant argues that granting that the land in question formed part of the public domain, having been gained from the sea, the trial court should have declared the same no longer necessary for any public use or purpose, and therefore, became disposable and available for private ownership. Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866 reads thus: ART. 4. Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coastguard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof. Interpreting Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866, in the case of Natividad vs. Director of Lands, (CA) 37 Off. Gaz., 2905, it was there held that: Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866 provides that when a portion of the shore is no longer washed by the waters of the sea and is not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for coastguard service, the government shall declare it to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof. We believe that only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the authority and the power to make the declaration that any land so gained by the sea, is not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, on for coast-guard service. If no such declaration has been made by said departments, the lot in question forms part of the public domain. (Natividad vs. Director of Lands, supra.) The reason for this pronouncement, according to this Tribunal in the case of Vicente Joven y Monteverde vs. Director of Lands, 93 Phil., 134, (cited in Velayo's Digest, VI. I, p. 52). . . . is undoubtedly that the courts are neither primarily called upon, nor indeed in a position to determine whether any public land are to be used for the purposes specified in Article 4 of the Law of Waters. Consequently, until a formal declaration on executive department or the Legislature, to longer needed for coast guard service, for continue to be part of the public domain, ownership. the part of the Government, through the the effect that the land in question is no public use or for special industries, they not available for private appropriation or

Appellant next contends that he had acquired the parcel in question through acquisitive prescription, having possessed the same for over ten years. In answer, suffice it to say that land of the public domain is not subject to ordinary prescription. In the case of Insular Government vs. Aldecoa & Co., 19 Phil., 505 this Court said:

The occupation or material possession of any land formed upon the shore by accretion, without previous permission from the proper authorities, although the occupant may have held the same as owner for seventeen years and constructed a wharf on the land, is illegal and is a mere detainer, inasmuch as such land is outside of the sphere of commerce; it pertains to the national domain; it is intended for public uses and for the benefit of those who live nearby. We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised in the appeal. In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs. G.R. No. L-68117 October 17, 1988 HEIRS OF FELINO T. SANTIAGO, represented by LADISLA SANTIAGO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE MANUEL M. LAZARO, Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs and DELIA O. PAYOT, respondents.

Feeling aggrieved, Santiago inquired from the Office of the Minister of Natural Resources whether his Sales Contract or his application covering the land in dispute had been cancelled. The representative of the Ministry replied in the negative, with the additional explanation that only the Director of Lands has the power to cancel the award. On April 13, 1981, Deed No. V-15278 was issued by the Director of Lands in favor of Felino T. Santiago 2 and on April 22, 1981, the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City prepared Transfer Certificate of Title No. C-43080 covering the disputed land in the name of Felino T. Santiago. 3 As a result of such issuance, private respondent Delia O. Payot filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands seeking the recall of the award to Santiago, whose application and allocation had allegedly been cancelled by the MHAI and transferred to her, thereby entitling her to the award of the disputed lot. On January 13, 1983, the Director of Lands rendered a decision finding the protest of private respondent to be without merit. Said protest was "disregarded and dismissed, and ...dropped from the records." Sales Contract No. 77-760 4 issued to Felino T. Santiago was declared valid and in full force and effect. 5 The appeal interposed by private respondent to the Minister of Natural Resources proved unavailing 6 but on further appeal to the Office of the President, private respondent was granted the relief sought, thus: PREMISES CONSIDERED, Sales Contract No. 77-760 and Deed No. V-1 5278, both executed in favor of the late Felino T. Santiago, are hereby cancelled for being void. Lot No. 7, Block 70 of the Pangarap Village shall be sold without auction to Delia 0. Payot, the actual occupant thereof, in accordance. with the pertinent laws and regulations governing the disposition of said lot. The decisions of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Director of Lands, dated June 18, 1983, and January 13, 1983, respectively, are accordingly SET ASIDE. 7 This unexpected turn of events left the heirs of Felino T. Santiago who died during the proceedings below, in a quandary. Ladisla Santiago, his widow, filed thru counsel a motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the Office of the President. Hence, the instant petition, petitioners Heirs of Felino T. Santiago, represented by Ladisla Santiago, attributing to public respondent Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the decisions of the Director of Lands and Minister of Natural Resources, respectively. Basis of public respondent's reversal of the respective decisions of the Director of Lands and Minister of Natural Resources is his conclusion that private respondent was the actual bona fide occupant of the lot in dispute and therefore the applicant entitled thereto. Considering the evidence extant on the records, we find this conclusion so constrained and contrived as to render public respondent's exercise of his judgment capricious, whimsical and arbitrary, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. His action calls for the corrective writ of certiorari. Felino Santiago's application to purchase the lot in question was approved after verification thru an ocular inspection by Lands Investigator Buensuceso I. Guido, of the

FERNAN, C.J.: We annul and set aside the decision dated April 6, 1984 of the Office of the President through then Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs Manuel M. Lazaro in O.P. Case No. 2442 entitled "Delia O. Payot, Appellant, versus Heir of Felino T. Santiago, represented by Ladisla Santiago, Appellees." The antecedents are as follows: On February 28,1976, the late Felino T. Santiago, a member of the Malacaang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI) filed an application with the Bureau of Lands for the purchase of a parcel of friar land with an area of 255 square meters particularly described as Lot No. 7, Block 70, Psd-04-000011 of the Tala Friar Lands Estate in Makatipo, Caloocan City. In the Information Sheet he submitted, applicant Santiago stated that he had actually been occupying the land being applied for since February of 1973 and that he had introduced improvements thereon consisting of a small hut, fence, clearings and seasonal crops. An investigation was conducted by Lands Investigator Buensuceso I. Guido, who, finding the allegations contained in the Information Sheet to be true, recommended that the aforesaid lot be sold at private sale in favor of Felino T. Santiago. Endorsed by the Assistant Director of Lands, said recommendation was approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. Whereupon, Sales Contract No. 77-760 dated March 17, 1977 was entered into by the Director of Lands and Felino Santiago, 1 who paid the purchase price in full on the same date as evidenced by O.R. No. 5777291. However, barely a year from the execution of the Sales Contract, MHAI cancelled Santiago's application over the land in question and allocated the same to private respondent Delia O. Payot The latter's parents then took possession of the land and built a small house thereon without the knowledge and consent of Santiago or any member of his family.

veracity of Santiago's allegations that he had been occupying said lot since 1973 and had introduced certain improvements thereon. The Sales Contract was accordingly executed and the purchase price forthwith paid in full. For alleged failure of Santiago to occupy the lot in question and to introduce improvements thereon within sixty (60) days from the date of the award, the MHAI unilaterally cancelled his application and instead allocated the controverted lot to private respondent. But as admitted by public respondent himself, ... the administration and disposition of friar land estates are lodged with the Director of Lands, subject to the supervision and control of the Minister of Natural Resources [Act No. 1120, as amended; Sections 79(c) and 84, Revised Administrative Code], and, therefore, it was not within the competence of the MHAI to cancel the application over the disputed lot filed by Felino Santiago. 8 (emphasis supplied) Furthermore, it was found by the Director of Lands that the cancellation by MHAI of the award in Santiago's favor was made without earnest efforts to ascertain why the allocated failed to satisfy the requirements laid down by the Association, despite the proviso voiced out by a Mr. Agbulos an association officer, during the meeting on April 27, 1975 that "the allocated must first be contacted to find (out) the reason why he has abandoned the lot allocated to him." 9 From these established facts, there can be no doubt that the cancellation of the award in Santiago's favor is null and void, not only for lack of competence and authority on the part of the MHAI, but particularly for being violative of the applicant's constitutional right to due process. It was at this stage that private respondent entered into the picture. But while herself the allocated the actual occupants of the lot were her parents, who in a record two weeks' time were able to construct a house thereon. 10 Private respondent, it was admitted, was a resident of 107 Mother Ignacia, St., Diliman, Quezon City 11 and went to the lot in question only for visits. 12 In fact, during the proceedings below, it was private respondent's father who appeared with counsel, not private respondent. 13 In the light of these admitted facts and despite his own assertion that "appellant's (private respondent's) entry into the lot was without authority or permit from the Director of Lands " 14 we cannot see how public respondent could logically arrive at the conclusion that private respondent was the actual bona fide occupant of the lot in dispute. Upon the other hand, despite failure of Felino T. Santiago to have continuous physical possession of the lot, the conclusion that he was in legal contemplation, the actual bona fide occupant of the same, without any intention of abandoning it, is easily reached. It was disclosed that the failure of Felino Santiago to continue his possession over the lot in question was with good justification, "mainly attributable to his poverty, aggravated by his recurring illness which later resulted to (sic) his death." 15 Furthermore, emphasis should be laid on the fact that despite his recurring illness, Santiago took the necessary steps to protect his interest over the lot in controversy: he lost no time in verifying the validity of the cancellation of the award by the MHAI 16 and filed charges in court against Felicisimo Dayot, father of the private respondent and actual occupant of the lot. 17 Thus, the Minister of Natural Resources correctly ruled that:

... There was no abandonment on the part of the appellee (Santiago), for abandonment is not considered as such even if possession is intermittent and not continuous, if such is due to circumstances not imputable to the possessor. Mere non-use does not necessarily constitute abandonment. It cannot be inferred from non-use alone. The temporary absence of the appellee from the lot should not be taken against the tenability of his claim because such is mainly attributable to his poverty, aggravated by his recurring illness which later resulted to his death ... . 18 Even assuming arguendo that private respondent was not aware of the flaws in her title, her possession of the lot, and by proxy, at that, could not rise above the prior possession of Felino T. Santiago, who, during such possession was able to comply with the requirements set by law for the purchase of the lot. Thus, at the time of entry of private respondent into said lot, the sale in favor of Felino T. Santiago had already been consummated thru the execution of the Sales Contract. Only the issuance of the Deed of Conveyance and the Transfer Certificate of Title which had then become ministerial on the part of the Director of Lands, remained to perfect his title thereto. Indeed, Felino Santiago's entitlement to the controverted lot is made indubitable by the fact that the cancellation of the award in his favor by the MHAI, notwithstanding, the Director of Lands issued a Deed of Conveyance to him. This proves that the Director of Lands was convinced that Santiago had complied with the requirements for the sale of the land; and rightly so, for the determination of whether improvements were made by Felino Santiago is to be made by the Director of Lands, and not by the MHAI. To allow the latter to do so would result in an abdication of one of the functions of the Bureau of Lands. And this we cannot allow. POTESTAS DELEGATA NON DELEGARE POTEST. A power once delegated cannot be redelegated. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of public respondent dated April 6, 1984 is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Minister of Natural Resources dated June 28, 1983 is REINSTATED. Costs against private respondent. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 179987 April 29, 2009 MALABANAN, Petitioner,

HEIRS OF MARIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. DECISION TINGA, J.:

One main reason why the informal sector has not become formal is that from Indonesia to Brazil, 90 percent of the informal lands are not titled and registered. This is a generalized phenomenon in the so-called Third World. And it has many consequences. xxx The question is: How is it that so many governments, from Suharto's in Indonesia to Fujimori's in Peru, have wanted to title these people and have not been able to do so

effectively? One reason is that none of the state systems in Asia or Latin America can gather proof of informal titles. In Peru, the informals have means of proving property ownership to each other which are not the same means developed by the Spanish legal system. The informals have their own papers, their own forms of agreements, and their own systems of registration, all of which are very clearly stated in the maps which they use for their own informal business transactions. If you take a walk through the countryside, from Indonesia to Peru, and you walk by field after field--in each field a different dog is going to bark at you. Even dogs know what private property is all about. The only one who does not know it is the government. The issue is that there exists a "common law" and an "informal law" which the Latin American formal legal system does not know how to recognize. - Hernando De Soto1 This decision inevitably affects all untitled lands currently in possession of persons and entities other than the Philippine government. The petition, while unremarkable as to the facts, was accepted by the Court en banc in order to provide definitive clarity to the applicability and scope of original registration proceedings under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. In doing so, the Court confronts not only the relevant provisions of the Public Land Act and the Civil Code, but also the reality on the ground. The countrywide phenomenon of untitled lands, as well as the problem of informal settlement it has spawned, has unfortunately been treated with benign neglect. Yet our current laws are hemmed in by their own circumscriptions in addressing the phenomenon. Still, the duty on our part is primarily to decide cases before us in accord with the Constitution and the legal principles that have developed our public land law, though our social obligations dissuade us from casting a blind eye on the endemic problems. I. On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 9864-A, Cad-452-D, Silang Cadastre,2 situated in Barangay Tibig, Silang Cavite, and consisting of 71,324 square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco,3 and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. The application was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of (RTC) Cavite-Tagaytay City, Branch 18. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) duly designated the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, Jose Velazco, Jr., to appear on behalf of the State.4 Apart from presenting documentary evidence, Malabanan himself and his witness, Aristedes Velazco, testified at the hearing. Velazco testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two hectare property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Estebanthe fourth being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos death, his four sons inherited the property and divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Estebans wife, Magdalena, had become the administrator of all the properties inherited by the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the properties, including Lot 9864-A, which originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan.5 Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jose Velazco, Jr. did not cross-examine Aristedes Velazco. He further manifested that he "also [knew] the property and I affirm the truth of the

testimony given by Mr. Velazco."6 The Republic of the Philippines likewise did not present any evidence to controvert the application. Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was a Certification dated 11 June 2001, issued by the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated that the subject property was "verified to be within the Alienable or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No. 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15, 1982."7 On 3 December 2002, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Malabanan, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves this application for registration and thus places under the operation of Act 141, Act 496 and/or P.D. 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration Law, the lands described in Plan Csd-04-0173123-D, Lot 9864-A and containing an area of Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four (71,324) Square Meters, as supported by its technical description now forming part of the record of this case, in addition to other proofs adduced in the name of MARIO MALABANAN, who is of legal age, Filipino, widower, and with residence at Munting Ilog, Silang, Cavite. Once this Decision becomes final and executory, the corresponding decree of registration shall forthwith issue. SO ORDERED. The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in possession of the property in the manner and for the length of time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. On 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision8 reversing the RTC and dismissing the application of Malabanan. The appellate court held that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree any period of possession prior to the classification of the lots as alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession. Thus, the appellate court noted that since the CENRO-DENR certification had verified that the property was declared alienable and disposable only on 15 March 1982, the Velazcos possession prior to that date could not be factored in the computation of the period of possession. This interpretation of the Court of Appeals of Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree was based on the Courts ruling in Republic v. Herbieto.9 Malabanan died while the case was pending with the Court of Appeals;10 hence, it was his heirs who appealed the decision of the appellate court. Petitioners, before this Court, rely on our ruling in Republic v. Naguit,11 which was handed down just four months prior to Herbieto. Petitioners suggest that the discussion in Herbieto cited by the Court of Appeals is actually obiter dictum since the Metropolitan Trial Court therein which had directed the registration of the property had no jurisdiction in the first place since the requisite notice of hearing was published only after the hearing had already begun. Naguit, petitioners argue, remains the controlling doctrine, especially when the property in question is agricultural land. Therefore, with respect to agricultural lands, any possession prior to the declaration of the alienable property as disposable may be counted in reckoning the

period of possession to perfect title under the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree. The petition was referred to the Court en banc,12 and on 11 November 2008, the case was heard on oral arguments. The Court formulated the principal issues for the oral arguments, to wit: 1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be registered under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, should the land be classified as alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any time prior to the filing of the applicant for registration provided that it is established that the applicant has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier? 2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree may a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable be deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by prescription in accordance with the Civil Code? 3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either because of its use or because its slope is below that of forest lands be registrable under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in relation to the provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription? 4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both?13 Based on these issues, the parties formulated their respective positions. With respect to Section 14(1), petitioners reiterate that the analysis of the Court in Naguit is the correct interpretation of the provision. The seemingly contradictory pronouncement in Herbieto, it is submitted, should be considered obiter dictum, since the land registration proceedings therein was void ab initio due to lack of publication of the notice of initial hearing. Petitioners further point out that in Republic v. Bibonia, 14 promulgated in June of 2007, the Court applied Naguit and adopted the same observation that the preferred interpretation by the OSG of Section 14(1) was patently absurd. For its part, the OSG remains insistent that for Section 14(1) to apply, the land should have been classified as alienable and disposable as of 12 June 1945. Apart from Herbieto, the OSG also cites the subsequent rulings in Buenaventura v. Republic,15 Fieldman Agricultural Trading v. Republic16 and Republic v. Imperial Credit Corporation,17 as well as the earlier case of Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals.18 With respect to Section 14(2), petitioners submit that open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of an alienable land of the public domain for more than 30 years ipso jure converts the land into private property, thus placing it under the coverage of Section 14(2). According to them, it would not matter whether the land sought to be registered was previously classified as agricultural land of the public domain so long as, at the time of the application, the property had already been "converted" into private property through prescription. To bolster their argument, petitioners cite extensively from our 2008 ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties.19

The arguments submitted by the OSG with respect to Section 14(2) are more extensive. The OSG notes that under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, the acquisitive prescription of properties of the State refers to "patrimonial property," while Section 14(2) speaks of "private lands." It observes that the Court has yet to decide a case that presented Section 14(2) as a ground for application for registration, and that the 30-year possession period refers to the period of possession under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, and not the concept of prescription under the Civil Code. The OSG further submits that, assuming that the 30-year prescriptive period can run against public lands, said period should be reckoned from the time the public land was declared alienable and disposable. Both sides likewise offer special arguments with respect to the particular factual circumstances surrounding the subject property and the ownership thereof. II. First, we discuss Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. For a full understanding of the provision, reference has to be made to the Public Land Act. A. Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, has, since its enactment, governed the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. The President is authorized, from time to time, to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral lands.20 Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are further classified according to their uses into (a) agricultural; (b) residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes; (c) educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.21 May a private person validly seek the registration in his/her name of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain? Section 11 of the Public Land Act acknowledges that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be disposed of "by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles" through "judicial legalization." 22 Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073, supplies the details and unmistakably grants that right, subject to the requisites stated therein: Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: xxx (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

Section 48(b) of Com. Act No. 141 received its present wording in 1977 when the law was amended by P.D. No. 1073. Two significant amendments were introduced by P.D. No. 1073. First, the term "agricultural lands" was changed to "alienable and disposable lands of the public domain." The OSG submits that this amendment restricted the scope of the lands that may be registered.23 This is not actually the case. Under Section 9 of the Public Land Act, "agricultural lands" are a mere subset of "lands of the public domain alienable or open to disposition." Evidently, alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are a larger class than only "agricultural lands." Second, the length of the requisite possession was changed from possession for "thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application" to possession "since June 12, 1945 or earlier." The Court in Naguit explained: When the Public Land Act was first promulgated in 1936, the period of possession deemed necessary to vest the right to register their title to agricultural lands of the public domain commenced from July 26, 1894. However, this period was amended by R.A. No. 1942, which provided that the bona fide claim of ownership must have been for at least thirty (30) years. Then in 1977, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act was again amended, this time by P.D. No. 1073, which pegged the reckoning date at June 12, 1945. xxx It bears further observation that Section 48(b) of Com. Act No, 141 is virtually the same as Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Said Decree codified the various laws relative to the registration of property, including lands of the public domain. It is Section 14(1) that operationalizes the registration of such lands of the public domain. The provision reads: SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Notwithstanding the passage of the Property Registration Decree and the inclusion of Section 14(1) therein, the Public Land Act has remained in effect. Both laws commonly refer to persons or their predecessors-in-interest who "have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier." That circumstance may have led to the impression that one or the other is a redundancy, or that Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act has somehow been repealed or mooted. That is not the case. The opening clauses of Section 48 of the Public Land Act and Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree warrant comparison: Sec. 48 [of the Public Land Act]. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: xxx

Sec. 14 [of the Property Registration Decree]. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: xxx It is clear that Section 48 of the Public Land Act is more descriptive of the nature of the right enjoyed by the possessor than Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, which seems to presume the pre-existence of the right, rather than establishing the right itself for the first time. It is proper to assert that it is the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073 effective 25 January 1977, that has primarily established the right of a Filipino citizen who has been "in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" to perfect or complete his title by applying with the proper court for the confirmation of his ownership claim and the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title. Section 48 can be viewed in conjunction with the afore-quoted Section 11 of the Public Land Act, which provides that public lands suitable for agricultural purposes may be disposed of by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles, and given the notion that both provisions declare that it is indeed the Public Land Act that primarily establishes the substantive ownership of the possessor who has been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945. In turn, Section 14(a) of the Property Registration Decree recognizes the substantive right granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as well provides the corresponding original registration procedure for the judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title. There is another limitation to the right granted under Section 48(b). Section 47 of the Public Land Act limits the period within which one may exercise the right to seek registration under Section 48. The provision has been amended several times, most recently by Rep. Act No. 9176 in 2002. It currently reads thus: Section 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby granted time, not to extend beyond December 31, 2020 within which to avail of the benefits of this Chapter: Provided, That this period shall apply only where the area applied for does not exceed twelve (12) hectares: Provided, further, That the several periods of time designated by the President in accordance with Section Forty-Five of this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the provisions of this Chapter, but this Section shall not be construed as prohibiting any said persons from acting under this Chapter at any time prior to the period fixed by the President.24 Accordingly under the current state of the law, the substantive right granted under Section 48(b) may be availed of only until 31 December 2020. B. Despite the clear text of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended and Section 14(a) of the Property Registration Decree, the OSG has adopted the position that for one to acquire the right to seek registration of an alienable and disposable land of the public domain, it is not enough that the applicant and his/her predecessors-in-interest be in possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945; the alienable and disposable character of the property must have been declared also as of 12 June 1945. Following the OSGs approach, all lands certified as alienable and disposable after 12 June 1945 cannot be registered either under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree

or Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended. The absurdity of such an implication was discussed in Naguit. Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and disposable character of the land should have already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by the plain meaning of Section 14(1). "Since June 12, 1945," as used in the provision, qualifies its antecedent phrase "under a bonafide claim of ownership." Generally speaking, qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are immediately associated, and not those distantly or remotely located.25 Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur sentencia. Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we adopt petitioners position. Absent a legislative amendment, the rule would be, adopting the OSGs view, that all lands of the public domain which were not declared alienable or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation would even be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945, the Philippines was not yet even considered an independent state. Accordingly, the Court in Naguit explained: [T]he more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property. The Court declares that the correct interpretation of Section 14(1) is that which was adopted in Naguit. The contrary pronouncement in Herbieto, as pointed out in Naguit, absurdly limits the application of the provision to the point of virtual inutility since it would only cover lands actually declared alienable and disposable prior to 12 June 1945, even if the current possessor is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership long before that date. Moreover, the Naguit interpretation allows more possessors under a bona fide claim of ownership to avail of judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles than what would be feasible under Herbieto. This balancing fact is significant, especially considering our forthcoming discussion on the scope and reach of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. Petitioners make the salient observation that the contradictory passages from Herbieto are obiter dicta since the land registration proceedings therein is void ab initio in the first place due to lack of the requisite publication of the notice of initial hearing. There is no need to explicitly overturn Herbieto, as it suffices that the Courts acknowledgment that the particular line of argument used therein concerning Section 14(1) is indeed obiter. It may be noted that in the subsequent case of Buenaventura,26 the Court, citing Herbieto, again stated that "[a]ny period of possession prior to the date when the

[s]ubject [property was] classified as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession" That statement, in the context of Section 14(1), is certainly erroneous. Nonetheless, the passage as cited in Buenaventura should again be considered as obiter. The application therein was ultimately granted, citing Section 14(2). The evidence submitted by petitioners therein did not establish any mode of possession on their part prior to 1948, thereby precluding the application of Section 14(1). It is not even apparent from the decision whether petitioners therein had claimed entitlement to original registration following Section 14(1), their position being that they had been in exclusive possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for over fifty (50) years, but not before 12 June 1945. Thus, neither Herbieto nor its principal discipular ruling Buenaventura has any precedental value with respect to Section 14(1). On the other hand, the ratio of Naguit is embedded in Section 14(1), since it precisely involved situation wherein the applicant had been in exclusive possession under a bona fide claim of ownership prior to 12 June 1945. The Courts interpretation of Section 14(1) therein was decisive to the resolution of the case. Any doubt as to which between Naguit or Herbieto provides the final word of the Court on Section 14(1) is now settled in favor of Naguit. We noted in Naguit that it should be distinguished from Bracewell v. Court of Appeals27 since in the latter, the application for registration had been filed before the land was declared alienable or disposable. The dissent though pronounces Bracewell as the better rule between the two. Yet two years after Bracewell, its ponente, the esteemed Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, penned the ruling in Republic v. Ceniza,28 which involved a claim of possession that extended back to 1927 over a public domain land that was declared alienable and disposable only in 1980. Ceniza cited Bracewell, quoted extensively from it, and following the mindset of the dissent, the attempt at registration in Ceniza should have failed. Not so. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. In this case, private respondents presented a certification dated November 25, 1994, issued by Eduardo M. Inting, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office in Cebu City, stating that the lots involved were "found to be within the alienable and disposable (sic) Block-I, Land Classification Project No. 32-A, per map 2962 4-I555 dated December 9, 1980." This is sufficient evidence to show the real character of the land subject of private respondents application. Further, the certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence, which is true in this case. Worth noting also was the observation of the Court of Appeals stating that: [n]o opposition was filed by the Bureaus of Lands and Forestry to contest the application of appellees on the ground that the property still forms part of the public domain. Nor is there any showing that the lots in question are forestal land.... Thus, while the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that mere possession of public land for the period required by law would entitle its occupant to a confirmation of imperfect title, it did not err in ruling in favor of private respondents as far as the first requirement in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is concerned, for they were able to overcome the burden of proving the alienability of the land subject of their application.

As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, private respondents were able to prove their open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject land even before the year 1927. As a rule, we are bound by the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Although there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this is one of them.29 Why did the Court in Ceniza, through the same eminent member who authored Bracewell, sanction the registration under Section 48(b) of public domain lands declared alienable or disposable thirty-five (35) years and 180 days after 12 June 1945? The telling difference is that in Ceniza, the application for registration was filed nearly six (6) years after the land had been declared alienable or disposable, while in Bracewell, the application was filed nine (9) years before the land was declared alienable or disposable. That crucial difference was also stressed in Naguit to contradistinguish it from Bracewell, a difference which the dissent seeks to belittle. III. We next ascertain the correct framework of analysis with respect to Section 14(2). The provision reads: SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: xxx (2) Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws. The Court in Naguit offered the following discussion concerning Section 14(2), which we did even then recognize, and still do, to be an obiter dictum, but we nonetheless refer to it as material for further discussion, thus: Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D. No. 1073 preclude the application for registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possession over which commenced only after June 12, 1945? It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs and authorizes the application of "those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws." Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code.[30 ] There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years.[31 ] With such conversion, such property may now fall within the contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession being been open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit did not involve the application of Section 14(2), unlike in this case where petitioners have based their registration bid primarily on that provision, and where the

evidence definitively establishes their claim of possession only as far back as 1948. It is in this case that we can properly appreciate the nuances of the provision. A. The obiter in Naguit cited the Civil Code provisions on prescription as the possible basis for application for original registration under Section 14(2). Specifically, it is Article 1113 which provides legal foundation for the application. It reads: All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. It is clear under the Civil Code that where lands of the public domain are patrimonial in character, they are susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On the other hand, among the public domain lands that are not susceptible to acquisitive prescription are timber lands and mineral lands. The Constitution itself proscribes private ownership of timber or mineral lands. There are in fact several provisions in the Civil Code concerning the acquisition of real property through prescription. Ownership of real property may be acquired by ordinary prescription of ten (10) years,32 or through extraordinary prescription of thirty (30) years.33 Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith,34 as well as just title.35 When Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree explicitly provides that persons "who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws," it unmistakably refers to the Civil Code as a valid basis for the registration of lands. The Civil Code is the only existing law that specifically allows the acquisition by prescription of private lands, including patrimonial property belonging to the State. Thus, the critical question that needs affirmation is whether Section 14(2) does encompass original registration proceedings over patrimonial property of the State, which a private person has acquired through prescription. The Naguit obiter had adverted to a frequently reiterated jurisprudence holding that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years.36 Yet if we ascertain the source of the "thirty-year" period, additional complexities relating to Section 14(2) and to how exactly it operates would emerge. For there are in fact two distinct origins of the thirty (30)-year rule. The first source is Rep. Act No. 1942, enacted in 1957, which amended Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act by granting the right to seek original registration of alienable public lands through possession in the concept of an owner for at least thirty years. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: xxxxxxxxx

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter. (emphasis supplied)37 This provision was repealed in 1977 with the enactment of P.D. 1073, which made the date 12 June 1945 the reckoning point for the first time. Nonetheless, applications for registration filed prior to 1977 could have invoked the 30-year rule introduced by Rep. Act No. 1942. The second source is Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529 itself, at least by implication, as it applies the rules on prescription under the Civil Code, particularly Article 1113 in relation to Article 1137. Note that there are two kinds of prescription under the Civil Code ordinary acquisitive prescription and extraordinary acquisitive prescription, which, under Article 1137, is completed "through uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith." Obviously, the first source of the thirty (30)-year period rule, Rep. Act No. 1942, became unavailable after 1977. At present, the only legal basis for the thirty (30)-year period is the law on prescription under the Civil Code, as mandated under Section 14(2). However, there is a material difference between how the thirty (30)-year rule operated under Rep. Act No. 1942 and how it did under the Civil Code. Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1942, did not refer to or call into application the Civil Code provisions on prescription. It merely set forth a requisite thirty-year possession period immediately preceding the application for confirmation of title, without any qualification as to whether the property should be declared alienable at the beginning of, and continue as such, throughout the entire thirty(30) years. There is neither statutory nor jurisprudential basis to assert Rep. Act No. 1942 had mandated such a requirement,38 similar to our earlier finding with respect to the present language of Section 48(b), which now sets 12 June 1945 as the point of reference. Then, with the repeal of Rep. Act No. 1942, the thirty-year possession period as basis for original registration became Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which entitled those "who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws" to apply for original registration. Again, the thirty-year period is derived from the rule on extraordinary prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code. At the same time, Section 14(2) puts into operation the entire regime of prescription under the Civil Code, a fact which does not hold true with respect to Section 14(1). B. Unlike Section 14(1), Section 14(2) explicitly refers to the principles on prescription under existing laws. Accordingly, we are impelled to apply the civil law concept of prescription, as set forth in the Civil Code, in our interpretation of Section 14(2). There is no similar demand on our part in the case of Section 14(1). The critical qualification under Article 1113 of the Civil Code is thus: "[p]roperty of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of

prescription." The identification what consists of patrimonial property is provided by Articles 420 and 421, which we quote in full: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally includes property belonging to the State, cannot be the object of prescription or, indeed, be subject of the commerce of man.39 Lands of the public domain, whether declared alienable and disposable or not, are property of public dominion and thus insusceptible to acquisition by prescription. Let us now explore the effects under the Civil Code of a declaration by the President or any duly authorized government officer of alienability and disposability of lands of the public domain. Would such lands so declared alienable and disposable be converted, under the Civil Code, from property of the public dominion into patrimonial property? After all, by connotative definition, alienable and disposable lands may be the object of the commerce of man; Article 1113 provides that all things within the commerce of man are susceptible to prescription; and the same provision further provides that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by prescription. Nonetheless, Article 422 of the Civil Code states that "[p]roperty of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." It is this provision that controls how public dominion property may be converted into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all, Article 420 (2) makes clear that those property "which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth" are public dominion property. For as long as the property belongs to the State, although already classified as alienable or disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if when it is "intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth". Accordingly, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. It is comprehensible with ease that this reading of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree limits its scope and reach and thus affects the registrability even of lands already declared alienable and disposable to the detriment of the bona fide

possessors or occupants claiming title to the lands. Yet this interpretation is in accord with the Regalian doctrine and its concomitant assumption that all lands owned by the State, although declared alienable or disposable, remain as such and ought to be used only by the Government. Recourse does not lie with this Court in the matter. The duty of the Court is to apply the Constitution and the laws in accordance with their language and intent. The remedy is to change the law, which is the province of the legislative branch. Congress can very well be entreated to amend Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree and pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to liberalize the requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. The operation of the foregoing interpretation can be illustrated by an actual example. Republic Act No. 7227, entitled "An Act Accelerating The Conversion Of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, etc.," is more commonly known as the BCDA law. Section 2 of the law authorizes the sale of certain military reservations and portions of military camps in Metro Manila, including Fort Bonifacio and Villamor Air Base. For purposes of effecting the sale of the military camps, the law mandates the President to transfer such military lands to the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) 40 which in turn is authorized to own, hold and/or administer them.41 The President is authorized to sell portions of the military camps, in whole or in part.42 Accordingly, the BCDA law itself declares that the military lands subject thereof are "alienable and disposable pursuant to the provisions of existing laws and regulations governing sales of government properties."43 From the moment the BCDA law was enacted the subject military lands have become alienable and disposable. However, said lands did not become patrimonial, as the BCDA law itself expressly makes the reservation that these lands are to be sold in order to raise funds for the conversion of the former American bases at Clark and Subic.44 Such purpose can be tied to either "public service" or "the development of national wealth" under Article 420(2). Thus, at that time, the lands remained property of the public dominion under Article 420(2), notwithstanding their status as alienable and disposable. It is upon their sale as authorized under the BCDA law to a private person or entity that such lands become private property and cease to be property of the public dominion. C. Should public domain lands become patrimonial because they are declared as such in a duly enacted law or duly promulgated proclamation that they are no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth, would the period of possession prior to the conversion of such public dominion into patrimonial be reckoned in counting the prescriptive period in favor of the possessors? We rule in the negative. The limitation imposed by Article 1113 dissuades us from ruling that the period of possession before the public domain land becomes patrimonial may be counted for the purpose of completing the prescriptive period. Possession of public dominion property before it becomes patrimonial cannot be the object of prescription according to the Civil Code. As the application for registration under Section 14(2) falls wholly within the framework of prescription under the Civil Code, there is no way that possession during the time that the land was still classified as public dominion property can be counted to meet the requisites of acquisitive prescription and justify registration. Are we being inconsistent in applying divergent rules for Section 14(1) and Section 14(2)? There is no inconsistency. Section 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession, while Section 14(2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription.

Registration under Section 14(1) is extended under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act while registration under Section 14(2) is made available both by the Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code. In the same manner, we can distinguish between the thirty-year period under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1472, and the thirty-year period available through Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in relation to Article 1137 of the Civil Code. The period under the former speaks of a thirty-year period of possession, while the period under the latter concerns a thirty-year period of extraordinary prescription. Registration under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as amended by Rep. Act No. 1472 is based on thirty years of possession alone without regard to the Civil Code, while the registration under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree is founded on extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code. It may be asked why the principles of prescription under the Civil Code should not apply as well to Section 14(1). Notwithstanding the vaunted status of the Civil Code, it ultimately is just one of numerous statutes, neither superior nor inferior to other statutes such as the Property Registration Decree. The legislative branch is not bound to adhere to the framework set forth by the Civil Code when it enacts subsequent legislation. Section 14(2) manifests a clear intent to interrelate the registration allowed under that provision with the Civil Code, but no such intent exists with respect to Section 14(1). IV. One of the keys to understanding the framework we set forth today is seeing how our land registration procedures correlate with our law on prescription, which, under the Civil Code, is one of the modes for acquiring ownership over property. The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by private persons through prescription. This is brought about by Article 1113, which states that "[a]ll things which are within the commerce of man are susceptible to prescription," and that [p]roperty of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription." There are two modes of prescription through which immovables may be acquired under the Civil Code. The first is ordinary acquisitive prescription, which, under Article 1117, requires possession in good faith and with just title; and, under Article 1134, is completed through possession of ten (10) years. There is nothing in the Civil Code that bars a person from acquiring patrimonial property of the State through ordinary acquisitive prescription, nor is there any apparent reason to impose such a rule. At the same time, there are indispensable requisitesgood faith and just title. The ascertainment of good faith involves the application of Articles 526, 527, and 528, as well as Article 1127 of the Civil Code,45 provisions that more or less speak for themselves. On the other hand, the concept of just title requires some clarification. Under Article 1129, there is just title for the purposes of prescription "when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right." Dr. Tolentino explains: Just title is an act which has for its purpose the transmission of ownership, and which would have actually transferred ownership if the grantor had been the owner. This vice or defect is the one cured by prescription. Examples: sale with delivery, exchange, donation, succession, and dacion in payment.46

The OSG submits that the requirement of just title necessarily precludes the applicability of ordinary acquisitive prescription to patrimonial property. The major premise for the argument is that "the State, as the owner and grantor, could not transmit ownership to the possessor before the completion of the required period of possession."47 It is evident that the OSG erred when it assumed that the grantor referred to in Article 1129 is the State. The grantor is the one from whom the person invoking ordinary acquisitive prescription derived the title, whether by sale, exchange, donation, succession or any other mode of the acquisition of ownership or other real rights. Earlier, we made it clear that, whether under ordinary prescription or extraordinary prescription, the period of possession preceding the classification of public dominion lands as patrimonial cannot be counted for the purpose of computing prescription. But after the property has been become patrimonial, the period of prescription begins to run in favor of the possessor. Once the requisite period has been completed, two legal events ensue: (1) the patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land; and (2) the person in possession for the periods prescribed under the Civil Code acquires ownership of the property by operation of the Civil Code. It is evident that once the possessor automatically becomes the owner of the converted patrimonial property, the ideal next step is the registration of the property under the Torrens system. It should be remembered that registration of property is not a mode of acquisition of ownership, but merely a mode of confirmation of ownership.48 Looking back at the registration regime prior to the adoption of the Property Registration Decree in 1977, it is apparent that the registration system then did not fully accommodate the acquisition of ownership of patrimonial property under the Civil Code. What the system accommodated was the confirmation of imperfect title brought about by the completion of a period of possession ordained under the Public Land Act (either 30 years following Rep. Act No. 1942, or since 12 June 1945 following P.D. No. 1073). The Land Registration Act49 was noticeably silent on the requisites for alienable public lands acquired through ordinary prescription under the Civil Code, though it arguably did not preclude such registration.50 Still, the gap was lamentable, considering that the Civil Code, by itself, establishes ownership over the patrimonial property of persons who have completed the prescriptive periods ordained therein. The gap was finally closed with the adoption of the Property Registration Decree in 1977, with Section 14(2) thereof expressly authorizing original registration in favor of persons who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws, that is, the Civil Code as of now. V. We synthesize the doctrines laid down in this case, as follows: (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that "those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945" have acquired ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession. (a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been alienable and

disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.51 (b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run. (a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires ownership of patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. (b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a persons uninterrupted adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership. B. We now apply the above-stated doctrines to the case at bar. It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidencethe Tax Declarations they presented in particularis to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.

VI. A final word. The Court is comfortable with the correctness of the legal doctrines established in this decision. Nonetheless, discomfiture over the implications of todays ruling cannot be discounted. For, every untitled property that is occupied in the country will be affected by this ruling. The social implications cannot be dismissed lightly, and the Court would be abdicating its social responsibility to the Filipino people if we simply levied the law without comment. The informal settlement of public lands, whether declared alienable or not, is a phenomenon tied to long-standing habit and cultural acquiescence, and is common among the so-called "Third World" countries. This paradigm powerfully evokes the disconnect between a legal system and the reality on the ground. The law so far has been unable to bridge that gap. Alternative means of acquisition of these public domain lands, such as through homestead or free patent, have proven unattractive due to limitations imposed on the grantee in the encumbrance or alienation of said properties.52 Judicial confirmation of imperfect title has emerged as the most viable, if not the most attractive means to regularize the informal settlement of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, yet even that system, as revealed in this decision, has considerable limits. There are millions upon millions of Filipinos who have individually or exclusively held residential lands on which they have lived and raised their families. Many more have tilled and made productive idle lands of the State with their hands. They have been regarded for generation by their families and their communities as common law owners. There is much to be said about the virtues of according them legitimate states. Yet such virtues are not for the Court to translate into positive law, as the law itself considered such lands as property of the public dominion. It could only be up to Congress to set forth a new phase of land reform to sensibly regularize and formalize the settlement of such lands which in legal theory are lands of the public domain before the problem becomes insoluble. This could be accomplished, to cite two examples, by liberalizing the standards for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, or amending the Civil Code itself to ease the requisites for the conversion of public dominion property into patrimonial. Ones sense of security over land rights infuses into every aspect of well-being not only of that individual, but also to the persons family. Once that sense of security is deprived, life and livelihood are put on stasis. It is for the political branches to bring welcome closure to the long pestering problem. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 February 2007 and Resolution dated 2 October 2007 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 167707 October 8, 2008

TOURISM AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. MAYOR JOSE S. YAP, LIBERTAD TALAPIAN, MILA Y. SUMNDAD, and ANICETO YAP, in their behalf and in behalf of all those similarly situated, respondents.

x--------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. G.R. No. 173775 October 8, 2008

DR. ORLANDO SACAY and WILFREDO GELITO, joined by THE LANDOWNERS OF BORACAY SIMILARLY SITUATED NAMED IN A LIST, ANNEX "A" OF THIS PETITION, petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VI, PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, KALIBO, AKLAN, respondents. DECISION REYES, R.T., J.: AT stake in these consolidated cases is the right of the present occupants of Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied lands. There are two consolidated petitions. The first is G.R. No. 167707, a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming that2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo, Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap, et al. and ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes. The second is G.R. No. 173775, a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 10645">[3] issued by President Gloria MacapagalArroyo classifying Boracay into reserved forest and agricultural land. The Antecedents G.R. No. 167707 Boracay Island in the Municipality of Malay, Aklan, with its powdery white sand beaches and warm crystalline waters, is reputedly a premier Philippine tourist destination. The island is also home to 12,003 inhabitants4 who live in the bone-shaped islands three barangays.5 On April 14, 1976, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay Island,6 which identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons.7 On November 10, 1978, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 18018 declaring Boracay Island, among other islands, caves and peninsulas in the Philippines, as tourist zones and marine reserves under the administration of the Philippine Tourism

THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGION VI, REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VI PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER OF KALIBO, AKLAN, REGISTER OF DEEDS, DIRECTOR OF LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM SECRETARY, DIRECTOR OF PHILIPPINE

Authority (PTA). President Marcos later approved the issuance of PTA Circular 3-829 dated September 3, 1982, to implement Proclamation No. 1801. Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82 precluded them from filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants Mayor Jose S. Yap, Jr., Libertad Talapian, Mila Y. Sumndad, and Aniceto Yap filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan. In their petition, respondents-claimants alleged that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands. They declared that they themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They declared their lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them.10 Respondents-claimants posited that Proclamation No. 1801 and its implementing Circular did not place Boracay beyond the commerce of man. Since the Island was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private ownership. Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, they had the right to have the lots registered in their names through judicial confirmation of imperfect titles. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition for declaratory relief. The OSG countered 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 Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code,11 as amended. The OSG maintained that respondents-claimants reliance on PD No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 was misplaced. Their right to judicial confirmation of title was governed by CA No. 141 and PD No. 705. Since Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable and disposable, whatever possession they had cannot ripen into ownership. During pre-trial, respondents-claimants and the OSG stipulated on the following facts: (1) respondents-claimants were presently in possession of parcels of land in Boracay Island; (2) these parcels of land were planted with coconut trees and other natural growing trees; (3) the coconut trees had heights of more or less twenty (20) meters and were planted more or less fifty (50) years ago; and (4) respondents-claimants declared the land they were occupying for tax purposes.12 The parties also agreed that the principal issue for resolution was purely legal: whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or impediment to the titling of the lands in Boracay. They decided to forego with the trial and to submit the case for resolution upon submission of their respective memoranda.13 The RTC took judicial notice14 that certain parcels of land in Boracay Island, more particularly Lots 1 and 30, Plan PSU-5344, were covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 19502 (RO 2222) in the name of the Heirs of Ciriaco S. Tirol. These lots were involved in Civil Case Nos. 5222 and 5262 filed before the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan. 15 The titles were issued on August 7, 1933.16

RTC and CA Dispositions On July 14, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents-claimants, with a fallo reading: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court declares that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose no legal obstacle to the petitioners and those similarly situated to acquire title to their lands in Boracay, in accordance with the applicable laws and in the manner prescribed therein; and to have their lands surveyed and approved by respondent Regional Technical Director of Lands as the approved survey does not in itself constitute a title to the land. SO ORDERED.17 The RTC upheld respondents-claimants right to have their occupied lands titled in their name. It ruled that neither Proclamation No. 1801 nor PTA Circular No. 3-82 mentioned that lands in Boracay were inalienable or could not be the subject of disposition.18 The Circular itself recognized private ownership of lands.19 The trial court cited Sections 8720 and 5321 of the Public Land Act as basis for acknowledging private ownership of lands in Boracay and that only those forested areas in public lands were declared as part of the forest reserve.22 The OSG moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied.23 The Republic then appealed to the CA. On December 9, 2004, the appellate court affirmed in toto the RTC decision, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the appeal filed in this case and AFFIRMING the decision of the lower court.24 The CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced by a declaration that the lands they occupied since time immemorial were part of a forest reserve. Again, the OSG sought reconsideration but it was similarly denied.25 Hence, the present petition under Rule 45. G.R. No. 173775 On May 22, 2006, during the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, President Gloria MacapagalArroyo issued Proclamation No. 106426 classifying Boracay Island into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable). The Proclamation likewise provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land protection purposes. On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Dr. Orlando Sacay,27 Wilfredo Gelito,28 and other landowners29 in Boracay filed with this Court an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064.30 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 since time immemorial.

They have also invested billions of pesos in developing their lands and building internationally renowned first class resorts on their lots.31 Petitioners-claimants contended 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, known as the first Public Land Act.32 Thus, their possession in the concept of owner for the required period entitled them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Opposing the petition, the OSG argued that petitioners-claimants do not have a vested right over their occupied portions in the island. Boracay is an unclassified public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions of the island are inalienable and cannot be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands. There is a need for a positive government act in order to release the lots for disposition. On November 21, 2006, this Court ordered the consolidation of the two petitions as they principally involve the same issues on the land classification of Boracay Island.33 Issues G.R. No. 167707 The OSG raises the lone issue of whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 382 pose any legal obstacle for respondents, and all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their occupied lands in Boracay Island.34 G.R. No. 173775 Petitioners-claimants hoist five (5) issues, namely: I. AT THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHED POSSESSION OF PETITIONERS IN CONCEPT OF OWNER OVER THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS IN BORACAY, SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL OR AT THE LATEST SINCE 30 YRS. PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ON NOV. 19, 1997, WERE THE AREAS OCCUPIED BY THEM PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS DEFINED BY LAWS THEN ON JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES OR PUBLIC FOREST AS DEFINED BY SEC. 3a, PD 705? II. HAVE PETITIONERS OCCUPANTS ACQUIRED PRIOR VESTED RIGHT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OVER THEIR OCCUPIED PORTIONS OF BORACAY LAND, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT APPLIED YET FOR JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE? III.

IS THE EXECUTIVE DECLARATION OF THEIR AREAS AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE UNDER SEC 6, CA 141 [AN] INDISPENSABLE PRE-REQUISITE FOR PETITIONERS TO OBTAIN TITLE UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM? IV. IS THE ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION 1064 ON MAY 22, 2006, VIOLATIVE OF THE PRIOR VESTED RIGHTS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONERS OVER THEIR LANDS IN BORACAY, PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OR IS PROCLAMATION 1064 CONTRARY TO SEC. 8, CA 141, OR SEC. 4(a) OF RA 6657. V. CAN RESPONDENTS BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS TO ALLOW THE SURVEY AND TO APPROVE THE SURVEY PLANS FOR PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION FOR TITLING OF THE LANDS OF PETITIONERS IN BORACAY?35 (Underscoring supplied) In capsule, the main issue is whether private claimants (respondents-claimants in G.R. No. 167707 and petitioners-claimants in G.R. No. 173775) have a right to secure titles over their occupied portions in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right, if any, to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141, as amended. They do not involve their right to secure title under other pertinent laws. Our Ruling Regalian Doctrine and power of the executive to reclassify lands of the public domain Private claimants rely on three (3) laws and executive acts in their bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, namely: (a) Philippine Bill of 190236 in relation to Act No. 926, later amended and/or superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141;37 (b) Proclamation No. 180138 issued by then President Marcos; and (c) Proclamation No. 106439 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. We shall proceed to determine their rights to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under these laws and executive acts. But first, a peek at the Regalian principle and the power of the executive to reclassify lands of the public domain. The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber.40 Meanwhile, the 1973 Constitution provided the following divisions: agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law,41 giving the government great leeway for classification.42 Then the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one addition: national parks.43 Of these, only agricultural lands may be alienated.44 Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively classified under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain. 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.45 The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.46 All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.47 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.48 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.49 Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.50 The Regalian doctrine was first introduced in the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, which laid the foundation that "all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."51 The Laws of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims.52 The Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law53 partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and the Laws of the Indies. It established possessory information as the method of legalizing possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions which were set forth in said decree.54 Under Section 393 of the Maura Law, an informacion posesoria or possessory information title,55 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,56 from the date of its inscription.57 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.58 In sum, 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.59> The first law governing the disposition of public lands in the Philippines under American rule was embodied in the Philippine Bill of 1902.60 By this law, lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands were classified into three (3) grand divisions, to wit: agricultural, mineral, and timber or forest lands.61 The act provided for, among others, the disposal of mineral lands by means of absolute grant (freehold system) and by lease (leasehold system).62 It also provided the definition by exclusion of "agricultural public lands."63 Interpreting the meaning of "agricultural lands" under the Philippine Bill of 1902, the Court declared in Mapa v. Insular Government:64 x x x In other words, that the phrase "agricultural land" as used in Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands. x x x65 (Emphasis Ours)

On February 1, 1903, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act. The act established a system of registration by which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible. This is known as the Torrens system.66 Concurrently, on October 7, 1903, the Philippine Commission passed Act No. 926, which was the 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.67 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.68 On November 29, 1919, Act No. 926 was superseded by Act No. 2874, otherwise known as the second Public Land Act. This new, more comprehensive law 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, possession and occupation en concepto dueo since time immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required.69 After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, CA No. 141 amended Act No. 2874 on December 1, 1936. To this day, 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,70 and privately owned lands which reverted to the State.71 Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the requirement under Act No. 2874 of possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since time immemorial or since July 26, 1894. However, this provision was superseded by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942,72 which provided for a simple thirty-year prescriptive period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The provision was last amended by PD No. 1073,73 which now provides for possession and occupation of the land applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier.74 The issuance of PD No. 89275 on February 16, 1976 discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings.76 Under the decree, all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496 within six (6) months from the effectivity of the decree on February 16, 1976. Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands77 shall be governed by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344. On June 11, 1978, Act No. 496 was amended and updated by PD No. 1529, known as the Property Registration Decree. 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.79 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,80 declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.81 In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been "officially delimited and classified."82

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.83 To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.84 There must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. 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; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.85 The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.86 In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing 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. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof.87 Ankron and De Aldecoa did not make the whole of Boracay Island, or portions of it, agricultural lands. Private claimants posit that Boracay was already an agricultural land pursuant to the old cases Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands (1919)88 and De Aldecoa v. The Insular Government (1909).89 These cases were decided under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926. There is a statement in these old cases that "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands are agricultural lands until the contrary is shown."90 Private claimants reliance on Ankron and De Aldecoa is misplaced. These cases did not have the effect of converting the whole of Boracay Island or portions of it into agricultural lands. It should be stressed that the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 merely provided the manner through which land registration courts would classify lands of the public domain. Whether the land would be classified as timber, mineral, or agricultural depended on proof presented in each case. Ankron and De Aldecoa were decided at a time when the President of the Philippines had no power to classify lands of the public domain into mineral, timber, and agricultural. At that time, the courts were free to make corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance of the evidence.91 This was the Courts ruling in Heirs of the Late Spouses Pedro S. Palanca and Soterranea Rafols Vda. De Palanca v. Republic,92 in which it stated, through Justice Adolfo Azcuna, viz.: x x x Petitioners furthermore insist that a particular land need not be formally released by an act of the Executive before it can be deemed open to private ownership, citing the cases of Ramos v. Director of Lands and Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands. xxxx Petitioners reliance upon Ramos v. Director of Lands and Ankron v. Government is misplaced. These cases were decided under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the first Public Land Act No. 926 enacted by the Philippine Commission on October 7, 1926, under which there was no legal provision vesting in the Chief Executive or President of the Philippines the power to classify lands of the public domain into mineral, timber and agricultural so

that the courts then were free to make corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance of the evidence.93 To aid the courts in resolving land registration cases under Act No. 926, it was then necessary to devise a presumption on land classification. Thus evolved the dictum in Ankron that "the courts have a right to presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands are agricultural lands until the contrary is shown."94 But We cannot unduly expand the presumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa to an argument that all lands of the public domain had been automatically reclassified as disposable and alienable agricultural lands. By no stretch of imagination did the presumption convert all lands of the public domain into agricultural lands. If We accept the position of private claimants, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 would have automatically made all lands in the Philippines, except those already classified as timber or mineral land, alienable and disposable lands. That would take these lands out of State ownership and worse, would be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long-entrenched Regalian doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa attaches only to land registration cases brought under the provisions of Act No. 926, or more specifically those cases dealing with judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles. The presumption applies to an applicant for judicial or administrative conformation of imperfect title under Act No. 926. It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as private claimants or their predecessorsin-interest, who failed to avail themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them, their land remained unclassified and, by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, continued to be owned by the State. In any case, the assumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. Land classification was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was proof that the land was better suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could adjudge it as a mineral or timber land despite the presumption. In Ankron, this Court stated: In the case of Jocson vs. Director of Forestry (supra), the Attorney-General admitted in effect that whether the particular land in question belongs to one class or another is a question of fact. The mere fact that a tract of land has trees upon it or has mineral within it is not of itself sufficient to declare that one is forestry land and the other, mineral land. There must be some proof of the extent and present or future value of the forestry and of the minerals. While, as we have just said, many definitions have been given for "agriculture," "forestry," and "mineral" lands, and that in each case it is a question of fact, we think it is safe to say that in order to be forestry or mineral land the proof must show that it is more valuable for the forestry or the mineral which it contains than it is for agricultural purposes. (Sec. 7, Act No. 1148.) It is not sufficient to show that there exists some trees upon the land or that it bears some mineral. Land may be classified as forestry or mineral today, and, by reason of the exhaustion of the timber or mineral, be classified as agricultural land tomorrow. And vice-versa, by reason of the rapid growth of timber or the discovery of valuable minerals, lands classified as agricultural today may be differently classified tomorrow. Each case must be decided upon the proof in that particular case, having regard for its present or future value for one or the other purposes. We believe, however, considering the fact that it is a matter of public knowledge that a majority of the lands in the Philippine Islands are agricultural lands that the courts have a right to presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands are agricultural lands until the contrary is shown. Whatever the land involved in a particular land registration case is forestry or mineral land must, therefore, be a matter of proof. Its superior value for one purpose or the

other is a question of fact to be settled by the proof in each particular case. The fact that the land is a manglar [mangrove swamp] is not sufficient for the courts to decide whether it is agricultural, forestry, or mineral land. It may perchance belong to one or the other of said classes of land. The Government, in the first instance, under the provisions of Act No. 1148, may, by reservation, decide for itself what portions of public land shall be considered forestry land, unless private interests have intervened before such reservation is made. In the latter case, whether the land is agricultural, forestry, or mineral, is a question of proof. Until private interests have intervened, the Government, by virtue of the terms of said Act (No. 1148), may decide for itself what portions of the "public domain" shall be set aside and reserved as forestry or mineral land. (Ramos vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 175; Jocson vs. Director of Forestry, supra)95 (Emphasis ours) Since 1919, courts were no longer free to determine the classification of lands from the facts of each case, except those that have already became private lands. 96 Act No. 2874, promulgated in 1919 and reproduced in Section 6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive Department, through the President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.96-a Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or implied, to determine the classification of lands of the public domain.97 Here, private claimants, unlike the Heirs of Ciriaco Tirol who were issued their title in 1933,98 did not present a justiciable case for determination by the land registration court of the propertys land classification. Simply put, there was no opportunity for the courts then to resolve if the land the Boracay occupants are now claiming were agricultural lands. When Act No. 926 was supplanted by Act No. 2874 in 1919, without an application for judicial confirmation having been filed by private claimants or their predecessors-ininterest, the courts were no longer authorized to determine the propertys land classification. Hence, private claimants cannot bank on Act No. 926. We note that the RTC decision99 in G.R. No. 167707 mentioned Krivenko v. Register of Deeds of Manila,100 which was decided in 1947 when CA No. 141, vesting the Executive with the sole power to classify lands of the public domain was already in effect. Krivenko cited the old cases Mapa v. Insular Government,101 De Aldecoa v. The Insular Government,102 and Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands.103 Krivenko, however, is not controlling here because it involved a totally different issue. The pertinent issue in Krivenko was whether residential lots were included in the general classification of agricultural lands; and if so, whether an alien could acquire a residential lot. This Court ruled that as an alien, Krivenko was prohibited by the 1935 Constitution104 from acquiring agricultural land, which included residential lots. Here, the issue is whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural. Notably, the definition of "agricultural public lands" mentioned in Krivenko relied on the old cases decided prior to the enactment of Act No. 2874, including Ankron and De Aldecoa.105 As We have already stated, those cases cannot apply here, since they were decided when the Executive did not have the authority to classify lands as agricultural, timber, or mineral. Private claimants continued possession under Act No. 926 does not create a presumption that the land is alienable. Private claimants also contend that their continued possession of portions of Boracay Island for the requisite period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926106 ipso facto converted the island into private ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title in their name.

A similar argument was squarely rejected by the Court in Collado v. Court of Appeals.107 Collado, citing the separate opinion of now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,107-a ruled: "Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain. It prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading, selling and leasing of portions of the public domain of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the Islands. It also provided for the "issuance of patents to certain native settlers upon public lands," for the establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands." In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumption that title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the government; and that the governments title to public land sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties between Spain and the United States. 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." Thus, it is plain error for petitioners to argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates the legal presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable.108 (Emphasis Ours) Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public forest under PD No. 705. The DENR109 and the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority110 certify that Boracay Island is an unclassified land of the public domain. PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain as public forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a public forest as "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." Applying PD No. 705, all unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles already existing prior to its effectivity. The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the present realities in the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been partly stripped of its forest cover to pave the way for commercial developments. As a premier tourist destination for local and foreign tourists, Boracay appears more of a commercial island resort, rather than a forest land. Nevertheless, that the occupants of Boracay have built multi-million peso beach resorts on the island;111 that the island has already been stripped of its forest cover; or that the implementation of Proclamation No. 1064 will destroy the islands tourism industry, do not negate its character as public forest. Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution 112 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.113 The discussion in Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry114 is particularly instructive:

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. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.115 (Emphasis supplied) There is a big difference between "forest" as defined in a dictionary and "forest or timber land" as a classification of lands of the public domain as appearing in our statutes. One is descriptive of what appears on the land while the other is a legal status, a classification for legal purposes.116 At any rate, the Court is tasked to determine the legal status of Boracay Island, and not look into its physical layout. Hence, even if its forest cover has been replaced by beach resorts, restaurants and other commercial establishments, it has not been automatically converted from public forest to alienable agricultural land. Private claimants cannot rely on Proclamation No. 1801 as basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The proclamation did not convert Boracay into an agricultural land. However, private claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Proclamation classified Boracay, among other islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert that, as a tourist spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership. Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not convert the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land. There is nothing in the law or the Circular which made Boracay Island an agricultural land. The reference in Circular No. 3-82 to "private lands"117 and "areas declared as alienable and disposable"118 does not by itself classify the entire island as agricultural. Notably, Circular No. 3-82 makes reference not only to private lands and areas but also to public forested lands. Rule VIII, Section 3 provides: No trees in forested private lands may be cut without prior authority from the PTA. All forested areas in public lands are declared forest reserves. (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, the reference in the Circular to both private and public lands merely recognizes that the island can be classified by the Executive department pursuant to its powers under CA No. 141. In fact, Section 5 of the Circular recognizes the then Bureau of Forest Developments authority to declare areas in the island as alienable and disposable when it provides: Subsistence farming, in areas declared as alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development. Therefore, 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. The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801 also explain the rationale behind the declaration of Boracay Island, together with other islands, caves and peninsulas in the

Philippines, as a tourist zone and marine reserve to be administered by the PTA to ensure the concentrated efforts of the public and private sectors in the development of the areas tourism potential with due regard for ecological balance in the marine environment. Simply put, the proclamation is aimed at administering the islands for tourism and ecological purposes. It does not address the areas alienability.119 More importantly, Proclamation No. 1801 covers not only Boracay Island, but sixty-four (64) other islands, coves, and peninsulas in the Philippines, such as Fortune and Verde Islands in Batangas, Port Galera in Oriental Mindoro, Panglao and Balicasag Islands in Bohol, Coron Island, Puerto Princesa and surrounding areas in Palawan, Camiguin Island in Cagayan de Oro, and Misamis Oriental, to name a few. If the designation of Boracay Island as tourist zone makes it alienable and disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 1801, all the other areas mentioned would likewise be declared wide open for private disposition. That could not have been, and is clearly beyond, the intent of the proclamation. It was Proclamation No. 1064 of 2006 which positively declared part of Boracay as alienable and opened the same to private ownership. Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141120 provide that it is only the President, upon the recommendation of the proper department head, who has the authority to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands.121 In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo merely exercised the authority granted to her to classify lands of the public domain, presumably subject to existing vested rights. Classification of public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department, through the Office of the President. Courts have no authority to do so.122 Absent such classification, the land remains unclassified until released and rendered open to disposition.123 Proclamation No. 1064 classifies Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land. The Proclamation likewise provides for a 15-meter buffer zone on each side of the center line of roads and trails, which are reserved for right of way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land protection purposes. Contrary to private claimants argument, there was nothing invalid or irregular, much less unconstitutional, about the classification of Boracay Island made by the President through Proclamation No. 1064. It was within her authority to make such classification, subject to existing vested rights. Proclamation No. 1064 does not violate the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Private claimants further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates the provision of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring conversion of public forests into agricultural lands. They claim that since Boracay is a public forest under PD No. 705, President Arroyo can no longer convert it into an agricultural land without running afoul of Section 4(a) of RA No. 6657, thus: SEC. 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain. That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under PD No. 705 did not bar the Executive from later converting it into agricultural land. Boracay Island still remained an unclassified land of the public domain despite PD No. 705. In Heirs of the Late Spouses Pedro S. Palanca and Soterranea Rafols v. Republic, 124 the Court stated that unclassified lands are public forests. While it is true that the land classification map does not categorically state that the islands are public forests, the fact that they were unclassified lands leads to the same result. In the absence of the classification as mineral or timber land, the land remains unclassified land until released and rendered open to disposition. 125 (Emphasis supplied) Moreover, the prohibition under the CARL applies only to a "reclassification" of land. If the land had never been previously classified, as in the case of Boracay, there can be no prohibited reclassification under the agrarian law. We agree with the opinion of the Department of Justice126 on this point: Indeed, the key word to the correct application of the prohibition in Section 4(a) is the word "reclassification." Where there has been no previous classification of public forest [referring, we repeat, to the mass of the public domain which has not been the subject of the present system of classification for purposes of determining which are needed for forest purposes and which are not] into permanent forest or forest reserves or some other forest uses under the Revised Forestry Code, there can be no "reclassification of forest lands" to speak of within the meaning of Section 4(a). Thus, obviously, 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.127 Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and (2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.128 As discussed, the Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801 did not convert portions of Boracay Island into an agricultural land. The island remained an unclassified land of the public domain and, applying the Regalian doctrine, is considered State property.

Private claimants bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, relying on the Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801, must fail because of the absence of the second element of alienable and disposable land. Their entitlement to a government grant under our present Public Land Act presupposes that the land possessed and applied for is already alienable and disposable. This is clear from the wording of the law itself.129 Where the land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.130 Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to prove the first element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945. We cannot sustain the CA and RTC conclusion in the petition for declaratory relief that private claimants complied with the requisite period of possession. 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. Private claimants insist that they have a vested right in Boracay, having been in possession of the island for a long time. They have invested millions of pesos in developing the island into a tourist spot. They say their continued possession and investments give them a vested right which cannot be unilaterally rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064. The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically give them a vested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title to the land they are presently occupying. This Court is constitutionally bound to decide cases based on the evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law and jurisprudence stand, private claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and considerable investment in the island. One Last Note The Court is aware that millions of pesos have been invested for the development of Boracay Island, making it a by-word in the local and international tourism industry. The Court also notes that for a number of years, thousands of people have called the island their home. While the Court commiserates with private claimants plight, We are bound to apply the law strictly and judiciously. This is the law and it should prevail. Ito ang batas at ito ang dapat umiral. All is not lost, however, for private claimants. While they may not be eligible to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141, as amended, this does not denote their automatic ouster from the residential, commercial, and other areas they possess now classified as agricultural. Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial investments on their occupied alienable lands. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess. For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For another,

they may look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead131 or sales patent,132 subject to the conditions imposed by law. More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private claimants to acquire title to their occupied lots or to exempt them from certain requirements under the present land laws. There is one such bill133 now pending in the House of Representatives. Whether that bill or a similar bill will become a law is for Congress to decide. In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step necessary to open up the island to private ownership. This gesture may not be sufficient to appease some sectors which view the classification of the island partially into a forest reserve as absurd. That the island is no longer overrun by trees, however, does not becloud the vision to protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a healthy balance between progress and ecology. Ecological conservation is as important as economic progress. To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their promotion and protection are not just fancy rhetoric for politicians and activists. These are needs that become more urgent as destruction of our environment gets prevalent and difficult to control. As aptly observed by Justice Conrado Sanchez in 1968 in Director of Forestry v. Munoz:134 The view this Court takes of the cases at bar is but in adherence to public policy that should be followed with respect to forest lands. Many have written much, and many more have spoken, and quite often, about the pressing need for forest preservation, conservation, protection, development and reforestation. Not without justification. For, forests constitute a vital segment of any country's natural resources. It is of common knowledge by now that absence of the necessary green cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or ill effects of serious proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up; rivers and lakes which they supply are emptied of their contents. The fish disappear. Denuded areas become dust bowls. As waterfalls cease to function, so will hydroelectric plants. With the rains, the fertile topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With erosion come the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property crops, livestock, houses, and highways not to mention precious human lives. Indeed, the foregoing observations should be written down in a lumbermans decalogue.135 WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows: 1. The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 167707 is GRANTED and the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 71118 REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. 2. The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 173775 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 168819 November 27, 2008

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Decision1 dated 31 August 2004 and Resolution2 dated 30 June 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55454. In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision3 dated 21 November 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque, Branch 257, in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. M-197, dismissing petitioners claim of title to the subject property for which they sought judicial confirmation and registration. In its assailed Resolution, the appellate court denied petitioners Urgent Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The factual and procedural antecedents of the instant Petition are as follows: On 28 April 1993, private respondent Amparo Pascual filed with the RTC of Makati an application4 for confirmation and registration of title, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Land Act,5 as amended, to a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 5001-A, situated at San Dionisio, Paraaque, Metro Manila, with an area of 1,184.52 square meters (subject lot). Private respondent alleged, inter alia, that the subject lot was not within any reservation; that to the best of her knowledge and belief, there was no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting the said land, nor was there any person having any interest thereon; and that she was the occupant of the subject lot and had been in actual, open, continuous, adverse and exclusive possession thereof by herself and through her predecessor-in-interest since time immemorial. Attached to the application were the following documents: (1) the tracing cloth plan and duplicate blue print plan of the subject lot6; (2) the technical description of the subject lot7; and (3) Tax Declaration No. 016-10453 covering the subject lot for the year 1993.8 Upon private respondents ex-parte motion,9 the case was transferred to the RTC of Paraaque on 17 May 1993,10 where the same was raffled to Branch 274, in the sala of Judge Octavio A. Astilla.11 The RTC thereafter ordered that the initial hearing of LRC Case No. M-197 be held on 27 September 1993.12 On 27 September 1993, petitioners Alfredo, Preciosa, Angelita, and Crisostomo, all surnamed Buenaventura, filed an Opposition13 to private respondents application for confirmation and registration of title to the subject lot, contending that they and their predecessors-in-interest were the owners and possessors of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 5001, Cad-299, Paraaque Cadastre, of which the subject lot formed apart, since time immemorial. Not one of them gave consent to or authority for the issuance and approval of the subdivision plan where the subject lot was segregated from Lot No. 5001, and petitioner Preciosa never affixed her signature to such plan, thus, making the said subdivision plan falsified and illegal. Petitioners averred that they, instead of private respondent, were entitled to the confirmation of their title to the subject lot and to the registration of the same in their names. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, likewise filed an Opposition14 dated 10 February 1994 to private respondents application in LRC Case No. M-197, on the grounds that: (1) neither private respondent nor her predecessors-ininterest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto; (2) the muniments of title and/or the tax declaration attached to private respondents application did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the subject lot or her open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of an owner, since 12 June 1945 or earlier; (3) the muniments of title did not

ALFREDO, PRECIOSA, ANGELITA and CRISOSTOMO, all surnamed BUENAVENTURA, petitioners, vs. AMPARO PASCUAL and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION

appear to be genuine and the tax declaration appeared to be of recent vintage; (4) the claim of ownership in fee simple of the subject lot on the basis of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by private respondent who failed to file an appropriate application for registration of her title within the period of six months from the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 892 on 16 February 197615 inasmuch as the instant application was filed only on 28 April 1993; and (5) the subject lot applied for was a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, which was not subject to private appropriation. Hearings on LRC Case No. M-197 were held where the parties presented their respective evidence. According to private respondents evidence, the subject lot was originally owned by her grandfather Mariano Pascual (Mariano).16 Upon Marianos death, he was succeeded by his two sons, Arcadio and Agripino.17 As early as when she was 12 years old, private respondent was already aware that her father, Arcadio, owned the subject lot where she used to play, gather fish from a fishpond, and get fruits from the trees growing thereon.18 Her brother Ruben, however, claimed to be already 40 years old when he first saw the subject lot.19 Upon the death of Arcadio and his wife Josefa, the subject lot passed on to their three children: private respondent, Ruben, and Jose. Ruben and Jose executed on 8 March 1993 an Affidavit20 whereby they waived and renounced all their rights, interests, and participation over the subject lot in favor of private respondent, who could now file a petition in court and have the subject lot registered solely in her name. Other than planting trees and vegetables on the subject lot, however, private respondent and her predecessors-in-interest did not reside on or build any other improvement thereon.21 Private respondent could not definitively establish when her grandfather (Mariano), her father (Arcadio) and mother (Josefa) passed away, and the timeline when the ownership and possession of the subject lot was passed on from one person to another.22 Private respondent declared the subject lot in her name in 1993 and paid realty taxes for the same; but, aside from the said tax declaration covering the subject lot in her name, she was unable to present additional documentary evidence to prove her alleged ownership of the subject lot.23 On the other hand, petitioners presented evidence to support their claim that in 1941, brothers Arcadio and Agripino Pascual sold the subject lot to their parents Amado Buenaventura and Irene Flores. Agripino confirmed such a sale in his Affidavit executed on 22 December 1947, which states: AFFIDAVIT I, Agripino Pascual, of lawful age, married to Leonor de Leon, and resident of Paraaque, Rizal, after being duly sworn under oath, depose and say the following: That on March 29, 1941, my brother Arcadio Pascual and myself (sic) sold to Amado Buenaventura, married to Irene Flores of Paraaque, Rizal, a parcel of land, declared under Tax No. (sic) 10706 in the name of our late father, Mariano Pascual. That the said Mariano Pascual who was the previous absolute owner of the said parcel of land was our legitimate father and we two are the only legitimate and forced heirs to the said parcel of land. Hence, for taxation and assessment purposes I hereby testify that the said parcel of land should now be declared in the name of the said Amado Buenaventura and Irene Flores, for they are now the absolute owners of the said property.

In witness whereof, I hereby signed (sic) this affidavit in the City of Manila, this 22nd day of Dec., 1947.

(Sgd.) Affiant24

The subject lot was declared in the name of petitioners mother Irene in 1948, 1967, 1974 and 1984.25 In 1978, petitioners became owners and possessors of the subject lot when their parents executed a deed of sale over the same in their favor. 26 The subject property was then declared in petitioners names in 1979 and 1985. Petitioners and their parents had been religiously paying for the realty taxes on the subject lot from 1948 up to 1994, during which LRC Case No. M-197 was being heard. As of 1994, there were no improvements on the subject lot, as petitioners were filling it up so that they could sell it for a higher price.27 The subject lot was not part of any forest, sea, military or naval reservation, or any land of the public domain; and it had been possessed by petitioners and their parents publicly, usefully, adversely, and continuously from 1941 to 1994.28 On 21 November 1996, the RTC promulgated its Decision in LRC Case No. M-197, finding the evidence of both private respondent and petitioners insufficient and far from credible, and dismissing their respective claims over the subject lot. In refusing to give credence to private respondents evidence, the RTC reasoned that: A perusal of the records of this case will reveal that [herein respondents] claim of rightful ownership over the property in question is less than credible. Firstly, [respondent] claimed that the land applied for, consisting of 1,854.62 sq. meters, was first in the possession of her grandfather. Upon the death of the latter, which year she could not recall, the possession was then taken over by her father and her uncle. When the [respondent] was merely 12 years old, her father cultivated the land and planted the same with trees where she occasionally harvested fruits therefrom. A portion of the land was likewise covered by a fishpond where she used to catch fish at her fathers invitation. But upon marrying the late Arcadio Nicolas, the [respondent], together with her four children, was (sic) no longer in possession of the property as evidenced by her testimony that each time she and her children passed by the questioned property, she merely told her children that the same used to be owned by their family. Moreover, she further testified that "when I left the property, I didnt see anything anymore. If there is anybody who takes anything, I dont know about that" (tsn, Dec. 20, 1993, p. 24), which evidently proves that she was not in actual and continuous possession of the subject land. Ironically, it was only in the year 1993, when [respondents] two brothers allegedly decided to renounce their rights over the said property in her favor that the latter filed the instant application. Although the [respondent] may have proven her stay over the property dating back in her childhood days, such fact, however, failed to prove that her predecessors-in-interest were actually in possession of the property publicly, peacefully and openly for more than thirty (30) years. Moreover, the Pascual brothers, in their Affidavit of Renunciation, merely made allegations that they acquired the property in question from their grandfather, but failed to prove by concrete evidence how they came into possession of the parcel of land from which they based their claim or right (even granting that the same was indeed acquired by means of succession from their grandfather as rightful

owner/possessor thereof). Neither did they make mention about the manner by which their predecessors-in-interest possessed the same land. In the instant case, the [respondent] failed to present specific facts that would show the nature of such possession. xxx Secondly, the Affidavit of Renunciation introduced in evidence by the [respondent] where her brothers renounced their rights over the subject property in her name merely evidenced the fact that the parcel of land applied for was an alienable and disposable land of the public domain but insufficient to clearly establish the length of time of the possession of their predecessors-ininterest. Finally, even assuming arguendo that the [respondent] and her predecessors-ininterest were consistent in paying the corresponding taxes over the property starting in the year 1955, the same is of no moment, since the important thing to consider is the compliance of the thirty (30) year period of open and continuous possession of her predecessors-in-interest.29 As to petitioners evidence, the RTC made the following evaluation thereof: An evaluation of the evidence presented by the [herein petitioners] in support of their claim is likewise far from credible. The allegation of the [petitioners] that their parents already possessed the land as early as 1941 has not been duly proved nor documented. Granting that the subject lot was transferred to the parents of the [petitioners] sometime in 1947 by virtue of a sale, there was no showing that a notarized deed of sale was ever executed nor was the sale of the land entered in the Registry of Property. If indeed, a sale over the property took place, this Court cannot dismiss the fact that from 1947 until the present or approximately forty-six (46) years thereafter until the time of the filing of the land registration case, did the predecessors-ininterest of herein [petitioners] take the initiative of securing a title over the said property in their name. The contention that the subject lot has been owned by the Sps. Buenaventura by mere Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale (Exh. "1") cannot be taken lightly. Ordinarily, where the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to crossexamine the affiants, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. xxx Lastly, [petitioners] argument that [they] took over the possession of the property by the year 1978 or after the death of their parents is untenable. [They] failed to establish the nature of their possession of the land in question, whether the same may have been acquired by means of succession or donation or otherwise, since no documentary evidence had been presented to trace the acquisition of the property from the hands of the predecessors-in-interest of [petitioners] to them.30 In the end, the RTC held that: It having been insufficiently established that the lots (sic) in controversy have been under the continuous, open, meritorious, peaceful and adverse possession

of [herein respondents] and [herein petitioners] predecessors-in-interest, in the concept of [an] owner, during the period required by law, this Court finds no legal basis to uphold their respective claims. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for registration of Lot No. 5001-A of Cad-299 in the name of the [petitioner] Pascual, is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The [petitioners] claim is likewise, (sic) dismissed for being devoid of merit.31 Private respondent filed on 23 December 1996 a Notice of Appeal32 of the foregoing RTC Decision, while petitioners filed on 3 January 1997 a Motion for Reconsideration 33 thereof. In an Order dated 5 February 1997, the RTC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of the arguments it already considered and passed upon. Thereafter, on 27 February 1997, petitioners likewise filed their Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.34 The appeals of private respondent and petitioners were docketed before the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 55454. On 31 August 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision, disposing thus: WHEREFORE, under the premises, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.35 The Court of Appeals declared that private respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that the subject lot had been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by her and her predecessors-in-interest, in the concept of an owner, for the prescribed period prior to the filing of her application. Private respondents brother, Ruben, acknowledged that neither private respondent nor her predecessors-in-interest ever resided on the subject lot. Even private respondent herself admitted during trial that she was not the actual occupant of the subject lot. The tax declaration and realty tax receipts presented by private respondent were inconclusive evidence of her ownership. And the Affidavit of Renunciation executed in 1993 by private respondents brothers Ruben and Jose over their rights, interest, and participation over the subject lot in favor of private respondent did not state how long their predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject lot. Similarly, the Court of Appeals pronounced that petitioners failed to prove that their possession of the subject property was adverse, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, peaceful, and in the concept of owner. Petitioners were unable to present a notarized deed to evidence the alleged sale of the subject lot by the brothers Arcadio and Agripino to petitioners parents. It further affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the Affidavit executed by Agripino, confirming the alleged sale of the subject lot by him and his brother Arcadio to petitioners parents was hearsay evidence, because the adverse party was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant Agripino. Moreover, petitioners -- who not only opposed private respondents application, but who also, in effect, presented their own application by praying that the RTC confirm their title over the subject property instead and order the registration of the same in their name -- failed to comply with the requirement that an application must be accompanied by a tracing-cloth plan duly approved by the Director of Lands, as well as two blueprints or photographic copies thereof and copies of the surveyors certificate. Additionally, the Notice of Hearing of LRC Case No. M-197 as published in the Official Gazette and posted in conspicuous places pertained only to private respondents application. As such, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners could not thereby insist on the registration of the subject lot in their names.

Petitioners filed their Urgent Motion for Partial Reconsideration 36 of the Court of Appeals Decision on 27 September 2004, while private respondent filed her Motion for Reconsideration37 of the same decision on 22 November 2004. In a Resolution38 dated 30 June 2005, the Court of Appeals found no cogent reasons to disturb its earlier Decision, and decreed: WHEREFORE, both Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED. On 18 July 2005, private respondent filed before this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari,39 docketed as G.R. No. 168701. However, she subsequently moved to withdraw the said Motion and informed the Court of her intention to pursue an administrative remedy instead.40 The Court granted private respondents motion to withdraw in a Resolution41 dated 28 September 2005, and thereby declared G.R. No. 168701 terminated. Petitioners, on the other hand, filed the instant Petition for Review, submitting the following issues for the resolution by this Court: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED GRAVELY IN UPHOLDING THE PREVIOUS FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF CONFIRMATION OF SALE, EVEN IF EXECUTED ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO, IS HEARSAY AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF A DULY NOTARIZED DEED OF SALE, CANNOT SUSTAIN PETITIONERS (sic) CLAIM THAT THEIR PARENTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF PURCHASE FROM THE APPLICANTS PREDECESSORS. II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED GRAVELY IN DENYING PETITIONERS (sic) COUNTER-APPLICATION FOR TITLE BY USING THE SAME SET OF LEGAL CONCLUSIONS PREVIOUSLY APPLIED AGAINST AMPARO PASCUALS FAILED APPLICATION. III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED GRAVELY IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS-PRIVATE OPPOSITORS, NOT HAVING INITIATED THE REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS, CANNOT OBTAIN AN AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF OF REGISTRATION OF TITLE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED BY LAW. Fundamentally, the sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether petitioners are entitled to the confirmation and registration of the title to the subject lot in their names. Petitioners want this Court to reverse the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals finding that petitioners failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish their title over the subject property and to merit its registration in their names. However, the Court cannot grant petitioners prayer without reviewing the same evidence they presented and already considered by the trial and appellate courts. When a doubt or difference arises as to the

truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when a query necessarily solicits calibration of the whole evidence, considering mostly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and probabilities of the situation, questions or errors of fact are raised.42 The petitioners must be reminded that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not our function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.43 Time and again, this Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts. The trial court, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of their credibility. Hence, the findings of the trial court must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court. Likewise, the Court has ruled that, when supported by sufficient evidence, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal. The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.44 Although there are exceptions45 to the general rule that the Court is bound by the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, it finds that none exists in this case to justify a departure therefrom. Being the applicants for confirmation of imperfect title, petitioners bear the burden of proving that they meet the requirements for the same,46 by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence.47 The requirements necessary for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title are laid down in Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.48 In accordance therewith, any person who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, may file in the proper trial court an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives. Thus, any person seeking the confirmation and registration of his title under said statutory provision must specifically prove that: (1) the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and (2) he has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from 12 June 1945 or earlier. The RTC and the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners application for having failed to establish compliance with the second requirement, i.e., possession of the subject property for the period and in the nature required by law. The RTC and the Court of Appeals have carefully and meticulously dissected each piece of evidence presented by both private respondent and petitioners, and have thoroughly explained in their respective decisions the reasons why these pieces of evidence cannot be given much weight and credence.

The Court is also appalled by the utter lack of evidence on record establishing the first requirement, i.e., that the subject lot is alienable and disposable. The RTC and the Court of Appeals seemed to have merely presumed that the subject lot was already alienable and disposable. This Court cannot countenance such a presumption for two reasons: First, it goes against the Regalian doctrine which states that all lands of whatever classification belong to the State. The rule applies even to privately owned unregistered lands which, unless the contrary is shown, are presumed to be public lands.49 Second, without a definitive date when the subject lot became alienable and disposable, the determination of whether petitioners possessed the subject lot for the time period required by law is rendered impossible, since any period of possession prior to the date when the subject lot was classified as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession. Such possession can never ripen into ownership; and unless the land has been classified as alienable and disposable, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title shall not apply thereto.50 Indeed, the only evidence presented by petitioners on this basic requirement is the testimony of petitioner Angelita before the RTC, to wit: Q: At present, will you please tell us who is in possession of the land applied for? A: We the oppositors, sir. Q: Will you please tell us if the parcel of land applied for is part of any forest, military, naval reservation and sea (sic) or land of public domain? A: No, sir.51 The self-serving testimony of one of the petitioners is clearly not enough to overcome the presumption of State ownership of the subject lot and to establish that it is alienable or disposable. To prove that the land subject of the 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; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or statute. 52 No such evidence was offered by the petitioners in this case. Verily, the rules on the confirmation of imperfect title do not apply unless and until the land subject thereof is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.53 Inasmuch as the petitioners failed to present any proof that the subject lot has indeed been classified as and forms part of the disposable land of the public domain, whatever possession they might have had, regardless of the length or nature thereof cannot ripen into private ownership. Even on this ground alone, petitioners application for confirmation and registration of title can already be denied. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 133250 July 9, 2002 CHAVEZ, and AMARI COASTAL BAY petitioner, DEVELOPMENT

FRANCISCO I. vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY CORPORATION, respondents. CARPIO, J.:

This is an original Petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority ("PEA" for brevity) to disclose all facts on PEA's then on-going renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation ("AMARI" for brevity) to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such reclamation. The Facts On November 20, 1973, the government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways, signed a contract with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines ("CDCP" for brevity) to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The contract also included the construction of Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. CDCP obligated itself to carry out all the works in consideration of fifty percent of the total reclaimed land. On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, acquire, x x x lease and sell any and all kinds of lands."1 On the same date, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA the "lands reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay"2 under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP). On December 29, 1981, then President Marcos issued a memorandum directing PEA to amend its contract with CDCP, so that "[A]ll future works in MCCRRP x x x shall be funded and owned by PEA." Accordingly, PEA and CDCP executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 29, 1981, which stated: "(i) CDCP shall undertake all reclamation, construction, and such other works in the MCCRRP as may be agreed upon by the parties, to be paid according to progress of works on a unit price/lump sum basis for items of work to be agreed upon, subject to price escalation, retention and other terms and conditions provided for in Presidential Decree No. 1594. All the financing required for such works shall be provided by PEA. xxx (iii) x x x CDCP shall give up all its development rights and hereby agrees to cede and transfer in favor of PEA, all of the rights, title, interest and participation of CDCP in and to all the areas of land reclaimed by CDCP in the MCCRRP as of December 30, 1981 which have not yet been sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of by CDCP as of said date, which areas consist of

approximately Ninety-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three (99,473) square meters in the Financial Center Area covered by land pledge No. 5 and approximately Three Million Three Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight (3,382,888) square meters of reclaimed areas at varying elevations above Mean Low Water Level located outside the Financial Center Area and the First Neighborhood Unit."3 On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" located at the southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Paraaque City. The Freedom Islands have a total land area of One Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One (1,578,441) square meters or 157.841 hectares. On April 25, 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA" for brevity) with AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands. The JVA also required the reclamation of an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding these islands to complete the configuration in the Master Development Plan of the Southern Reclamation Project-MCCRRP. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding.4 On April 28, 1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA.5 On June 8, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA.6 On November 29, 1996, then Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the JVA as the "grandmother of all scams." As a result, the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, conducted a joint investigation. The Senate Committees reported the results of their investigation in Senate Committee Report No. 560 dated September 16, 1997.7 Among the conclusions of their report are: (1) the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain which the government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot alienate these lands; (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal. On December 5, 1997, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 creating a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of the JVA in view of Senate Committee Report No. 560. The members of the Legal Task Force were the Secretary of Justice,8 the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel,9 and the Government Corporate Counsel.10 The Legal Task Force upheld the legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions reached by the Senate Committees.11 On April 4 and 5, 1998, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that there were on-going renegotiations between PEA and AMARI under an order issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos. According to these reports, PEA Director Nestor Kalaw, PEA Chairman Arsenio Yulo and retired Navy Officer Sergio Cruz composed the negotiating panel of PEA. On April 13, 1998, Antonio M. Zulueta filed before the Court a Petition for Prohibition with Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction docketed as G.R. No. 132994 seeking to nullify the JVA. The Court dismissed the petition "for unwarranted disregard of judicial hierarchy, without prejudice to the refiling of the case before the proper court."12

On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez ("Petitioner" for brevity) as a taxpayer, filed the instant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a blatant violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations. Finally, petitioner asserts that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of public dominion. After several motions for extension of time,13 PEA and AMARI filed their Comments on October 19, 1998 and June 25, 1998, respectively. Meanwhile, on December 28, 1998, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion: (a) to require PEA to submit the terms of the renegotiated PEA-AMARI contract; (b) for issuance of a temporary restraining order; and (c) to set the case for hearing on oral argument. Petitioner filed a Reiterative Motion for Issuance of a TRO dated May 26, 1999, which the Court denied in a Resolution dated June 22, 1999. In a Resolution dated March 23, 1999, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda. On March 30, 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture Agreement ("Amended JVA," for brevity). On May 28, 1999, the Office of the President under the administration of then President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended JVA. Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the President, petitioner now prays that on "constitutional and statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and void."14 The Issues The issues raised by petitioner, PEA15 and AMARI16 are as follows: I. WHETHER THE PRINCIPAL RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN THE PETITION ARE MOOT AND ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS; II. WHETHER THE PETITION MERITS DISMISSAL FOR FAILING TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS; III. WHETHER THE PETITION MERITS DISMISSAL FOR NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; IV. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO BRING THIS SUIT; V. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION INCLUDES OFFICIAL INFORMATION ON ON-GOING NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE A FINAL AGREEMENT;

VI. WHETHER THE STIPULATIONS IN THE AMENDED JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER TO AMARI OF CERTAIN LANDS, RECLAIMED AND STILL TO BE RECLAIMED, VIOLATE THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; AND VII. WHETHER THE COURT IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE AMENDED JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IS GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. The Court's Ruling First issue: whether the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of subsequent events. The petition prays that PEA publicly disclose the "terms and conditions of the on-going negotiations for a new agreement." The petition also prays that the Court enjoin PEA from "privately entering into, perfecting and/or executing any new agreement with AMARI." PEA and AMARI claim the petition is now moot and academic because AMARI furnished petitioner on June 21, 1999 a copy of the signed Amended JVA containing the terms and conditions agreed upon in the renegotiations. Thus, PEA has satisfied petitioner's prayer for a public disclosure of the renegotiations. Likewise, petitioner's prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA is now moot because PEA and AMARI have already signed the Amended JVA on March 30, 1999. Moreover, the Office of the President has approved the Amended JVA on May 28, 1999. Petitioner counters that PEA and AMARI cannot avoid the constitutional issue by simply fast-tracking the signing and approval of the Amended JVA before the Court could act on the issue. Presidential approval does not resolve the constitutional issue or remove it from the ambit of judicial review. We rule that the signing of the Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its approval by the President cannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction. PEA and AMARI have still to implement the Amended JVA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA on constitutional grounds necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in the meantime PEA and AMARI have signed one in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner's principal basis in assailing the renegotiation of the JVA is its violation of Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from alienating lands of the public domain to private corporations. If the Amended JVA indeed violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to enjoin its implementation, and if already implemented, to annul the effects of such unconstitutional contract. The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial contract but one which seeks to transfer title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of Manila Bay to a single private corporation. It now becomes more compelling for the Court to resolve the issue to insure the government itself does not violate a provision of the Constitution intended to safeguard the national patrimony. Supervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution. In the instant case, if the Amended JVA runs counter to the Constitution, the Court can still prevent the transfer of title and ownership of alienable lands of the public domain in the name of AMARI. Even in cases where supervening events had made the cases moot, the Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and the public.17

Also, the instant petition is a case of first impression. All previous decisions of the Court involving Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, or its counterpart provision in the 1973 Constitution,18 covered agricultural lands sold to private corporations which acquired the lands from private parties. The transferors of the private corporations claimed or could claim the right to judicial confirmation of their imperfect titles19 under Title II of Commonwealth Act. 141 ("CA No. 141" for brevity). In the instant case, AMARI seeks to acquire from PEA, a public corporation, reclaimed lands and submerged areas for non-agricultural purposes by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Title III of CA No. 141. Certain undertakings by AMARI under the Amended JVA constitute the consideration for the purchase. Neither AMARI nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of their titles because the lands covered by the Amended JVA are newly reclaimed or still to be reclaimed. Judicial confirmation of imperfect title requires open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain for at least thirty years since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Besides, the deadline for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect title expired on December 31, 1987.20 Lastly, there is a need to resolve immediately the constitutional issue raised in this petition because of the possible transfer at any time by PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to portions of the reclaimed lands. Under the Amended JVA, PEA is obligated to transfer to AMARI the latter's seventy percent proportionate share in the reclaimed areas as the reclamation progresses. The Amended JVA even allows AMARI to mortgage at any time the entire reclaimed area to raise financing for the reclamation project.21 Second issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle governing the hierarchy of courts. PEA and AMARI claim petitioner ignored the judicial hierarchy by seeking relief directly from the Court. The principle of hierarchy of courts applies generally to cases involving factual questions. As it is not a trier of facts, the Court cannot entertain cases involving factual issues. The instant case, however, raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public.22 The Court can resolve this case without determining any factual issue related to the case. Also, the instant case is a petition for mandamus which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. We resolve to exercise primary jurisdiction over the instant case. Third issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. PEA faults petitioner for seeking judicial intervention in compelling PEA to disclose publicly certain information without first asking PEA the needed information. PEA claims petitioner's direct resort to the Court violates the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. It also violates the rule that mandamus may issue only if there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. PEA distinguishes the instant case from Taada v. Tuvera23 where the Court granted the petition for mandamus even if the petitioners there did not initially demand from the Office of the President the publication of the presidential decrees. PEA points out that in Taada, the Executive Department had an affirmative statutory duty under Article 2 of the Civil Code24 and Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63825 to publish the presidential decrees. There was, therefore, no need for the petitioners in Taada to make an initial demand from the Office of the President. In the instant case, PEA claims it has no affirmative statutory duty to disclose publicly information about its renegotiation of the JVA. Thus, PEA asserts that the Court must apply the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies to the instant case in view of the failure of petitioner here to demand initially from PEA the needed information.

The original JVA sought to dispose to AMARI public lands held by PEA, a government corporation. Under Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code,26 the disposition of government lands to private parties requires public bidding. PEA was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The law obligated PEA to make this public disclosure even without demand from petitioner or from anyone. PEA failed to make this public disclosure because the original JVA, like the Amended JVA, was the result of a negotiated contract, not of a public bidding. Considering that PEA had an affirmative statutory duty to make the public disclosure, and was even in breach of this legal duty, petitioner had the right to seek direct judicial intervention. Moreover, and this alone is determinative of this issue, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a purely legal or constitutional question.27 The principal issue in the instant case is the capacity of AMARI to acquire lands held by PEA in view of the constitutional ban prohibiting the alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations. We rule that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply in the instant case. Fourth issue: whether petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit PEA argues that petitioner has no standing to institute mandamus proceedings to enforce his constitutional right to information without a showing that PEA refused to perform an affirmative duty imposed on PEA by the Constitution. PEA also claims that petitioner has not shown that he will suffer any concrete injury because of the signing or implementation of the Amended JVA. Thus, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved here. First is the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern. Second is the application of a constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens. The thrust of the first issue is to compel PEA to disclose publicly information on the sale of government lands worth billions of pesos, information which the Constitution and statutory law mandate PEA to disclose. The thrust of the second issue is to prevent PEA from alienating hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain in violation of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply with a constitutional duty to the nation. Moreover, the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. In Chavez v. PCGG,28 the Court upheld the right of a citizen to bring a taxpayer's suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public, thus "Besides, petitioner emphasizes, the matter of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses is an issue of 'transcendental importance to the public.' He asserts that ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate and prosecute actions questioning the validity of acts or orders of government agencies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of 'paramount public interest,' and if they 'immediately affect the social, economic and moral well being of the people.' Moreover, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, such as in this case. He invokes several decisions of this Court which have set aside the procedural matter of locus standi, when the subject of the case involved public interest.

xxx In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing, the Court declared that the right they sought to be enforced 'is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land.' Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, while reiterating Taada, further declared that 'when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that petitioner is a citizen and, therefore, part of the general 'public' which possesses the right.' Further, in Albano v. Reyes, we said that while expenditure of public funds may not have been involved under the questioned contract for the development, management and operation of the Manila International Container Terminal, 'public interest [was] definitely involved considering the important role [of the subject contract] . . . in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved.' We concluded that, as a consequence, the disclosure provision in the Constitution would constitute sufficient authority for upholding the petitioner's standing. Similarly, the instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records, documents and papers a right guaranteed under Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner, a former solicitor general, is a Filipino citizen. Because of the satisfaction of the two basic requisites laid down by decisional law to sustain petitioner's legal standing, i.e. (1) the enforcement of a public right (2) espoused by a Filipino citizen, we rule that the petition at bar should be allowed." We rule that since the instant petition, brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of constitutional rights - to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources matters of transcendental public importance, the petitioner has the requisite locus standi. Fifth issue: whether the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final agreement. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information on matters of public concern in this manner: "Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." (Emphasis supplied)

The State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public interest reinforces the people's right to information on matters of public concern. This State policy is expressed in Section 28, Article II of the Constitution, thus: "Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest." (Emphasis supplied) These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the exercise of freedom of expression. If the government does not disclose its official acts, transactions and decisions to citizens, whatever citizens say, even if expressed without any restraint, will be speculative and amount to nothing. These twin provisions are also essential to hold public officials "at all times x x x accountable to the people,"29 for unless citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy. As explained by the Court in Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.30 "An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people's will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit." PEA asserts, citing Chavez v. PCGG,31 that in cases of on-going negotiations the right to information is limited to "definite propositions of the government." PEA maintains the right does not include access to "intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the 'exploratory stage'." Also, AMARI contends that petitioner cannot invoke the right at the pre-decisional stage or before the closing of the transaction. To support its contention, AMARI cites the following discussion in the 1986 Constitutional Commission: "Mr. Suarez. And when we say 'transactions' which should be distinguished from contracts, agreements, or treaties or whatever, does the Gentleman refer to the steps leading to the consummation of the contract, or does he refer to the contract itself? Mr. Ople: The 'transactions' used here, I suppose is generic and therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a contract and already a consummated contract, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Suarez: This contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction. Mr. Ople: Yes, subject only to reasonable safeguards on the national interest.

Mr. Suarez: Thank you."32 (Emphasis supplied) AMARI argues there must first be a consummated contract before petitioner can invoke the right. Requiring government officials to reveal their deliberations at the pre-decisional stage will degrade the quality of decision-making in government agencies. Government officials will hesitate to express their real sentiments during deliberations if there is immediate public dissemination of their discussions, putting them under all kinds of pressure before they decide. We must first distinguish between information the law on public bidding requires PEA to disclose publicly, and information the constitutional right to information requires PEA to release to the public. Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and without demand from anyone, disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its property. These include the size, location, technical description and nature of the property being disposed of, the terms and conditions of the disposition, the parties qualified to bid, the minimum price and similar information. PEA must prepare all these data and disclose them to the public at the start of the disposition process, long before the consummation of the contract, because the Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to make this disclosure, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process. Information, however, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to information. While the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts, transactions, or decisions" on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government. From this moment, the public's right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such definite proposition. In Chavez v. PCGG,33 the Court ruled as follows: "Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or interagency recommendations or communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the "exploratory" stage. There is need, of course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general, as discussed earlier such as on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information." (Emphasis supplied) Contrary to AMARI's contention, the commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission understood that the right to information "contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects.1wphi1.nt Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the contract, which may be grossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, becomes a fait accompli. This negates the State policy of full transparency on matters of public concern, a situation which the framers of the Constitution could not have intended. Such a requirement will prevent the citizenry from participating in the public discussion of any proposed contract, effectively truncating a basic right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We

can allow neither an emasculation of a constitutional right, nor a retreat by the State of its avowed "policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest." The right covers three categories of information which are "matters of public concern," namely: (1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies. The first category refers to any document that is part of the public records in the custody of government agencies or officials. The second category refers to documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming, supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions of government agencies or officials. The third category refers to research data, whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in formulating government policies. The information that petitioner may access on the renegotiation of the JVA includes evaluation reports, recommendations, legal and expert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of reference and other documents attached to such reports or minutes, all relating to the JVA. However, the right to information does not compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like relating to the renegotiation of the JVA.34 The right only affords access to records, documents and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them. One who exercises the right must copy the records, documents and papers at his expense. The exercise of the right is also subject to reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the public records and to minimize disruption to government operations, like rules specifying when and how to conduct the inspection and copying.35 The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as privileged information under the separation of powers.36 The right does not also apply to information on military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national security, and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused, which courts have long recognized as confidential.37 The right may also be subject to other limitations that Congress may impose by law. There is no claim by PEA that the information demanded by petitioner is privileged information rooted in the separation of powers. The information does not cover Presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed-door Cabinet meetings which, like internal deliberations of the Supreme Court and other collegiate courts, or executive sessions of either house of Congress,38 are recognized as confidential. This kind of information cannot be pried open by a co-equal branch of government. A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential, Legislative and Judicial power. 39 This is not the situation in the instant case. We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.40 Congress has also prescribed other limitations on the right to information in several legislations.41 Sixth issue: whether stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution. The Regalian Doctrine

The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all "lands, territories and possessions" in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.42 The King, as the sovereign ruler and representative of the people, acquired and owned all lands and territories in the Philippines except those he disposed of by grant or sale to private individuals. The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting, however, the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land ownership that "all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."43 Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian doctrine. Ownership and Disposition of Reclaimed Lands The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 was the first statutory law governing the ownership and disposition of reclaimed lands in the Philippines. On May 18, 1907, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1654 which provided for the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. Later, on November 29, 1919, the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 2874, the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. CA No. 141 continues to this day as the general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain. The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 and the Civil Code of 1889 Under the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, the shores, bays, coves, inlets and all waters within the maritime zone of the Spanish territory belonged to the public domain for public use.44 The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 allowed the reclamation of the sea under Article 5, which provided as follows: "Article 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." Under the Spanish Law of Waters, land reclaimed from the sea belonged to the party undertaking the reclamation, provided the government issued the necessary permit and did not reserve ownership of the reclaimed land to the State. Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889 defined property of public dominion as follows: "Art. 339. Property of public dominion is 1. That devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character;

2. That belonging exclusively to the State which, without being of general public use, is employed in some public service, or in the development of the national wealth, such as walls, fortresses, and other works for the defense of the territory, and mines, until granted to private individuals." Property devoted to public use referred to property open for use by the public. In contrast, property devoted to public service referred to property used for some specific public service and open only to those authorized to use the property. Property of public dominion referred not only to property devoted to public use, but also to property not so used but employed to develop the national wealth. This class of property constituted property of public dominion although employed for some economic or commercial activity to increase the national wealth. Article 341 of the Civil Code of 1889 governed the re-classification of property of public dominion into private property, to wit: "Art. 341. Property of public dominion, when no longer devoted to public use or to the defense of the territory, shall become a part of the private property of the State." This provision, however, was not self-executing. The legislature, or the executive department pursuant to law, must declare the property no longer needed for public use or territorial defense before the government could lease or alienate the property to private parties.45 Act No. 1654 of the Philippine Commission On May 8, 1907, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1654 which regulated the lease of reclaimed and foreshore lands. The salient provisions of this law were as follows: "Section 1. The control and disposition of the foreshore as defined in existing law, and the title to all Government or public lands made or reclaimed by the Government by dredging or filling or otherwise throughout the Philippine Islands, shall be retained by the Government without prejudice to vested rights and without prejudice to rights conceded to the City of Manila in the Luneta Extension. Section 2. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall cause all Government or public lands made or reclaimed by the Government by dredging or filling or otherwise to be divided into lots or blocks, with the necessary streets and alleyways located thereon, and shall cause plats and plans of such surveys to be prepared and filed with the Bureau of Lands. (b) Upon completion of such plats and plans the Governor-General shall give notice to the public that such parts of the lands so made or reclaimed as are not needed for public purposes will be leased for commercial and business purposes, x x x. xxx

(e) The leases above provided for shall be disposed of to the highest and best bidder therefore, subject to such regulations and safeguards as the Governor-General may by executive order prescribe." (Emphasis supplied) Act No. 1654 mandated that the government should retain title to all lands reclaimed by the government. The Act also vested in the government control and disposition of foreshore lands. Private parties could lease lands reclaimed by the government only if these lands were no longer needed for public purpose. Act No. 1654 mandated public bidding in the lease of government reclaimed lands. Act No. 1654 made government reclaimed lands sui generis in that unlike other public lands which the government could sell to private parties, these reclaimed lands were available only for lease to private parties. Act No. 1654, however, did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Act No. 1654 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea under Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government permission remained private lands. Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature On November 29, 1919, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2874, the Public Land Act.46 The salient provisions of Act No. 2874, on reclaimed lands, were as follows: "Sec. 6. The Governor-General, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into (a) Alienable or disposable, (b) Timber, and (c) Mineral lands, x x x. Sec. 7. For the purposes of the government and disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act." Sec. 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited or classified x x x. xxx Sec. 55. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being neither timber nor mineral land, shall be classified as suitable for residential purposes or for commercial, industrial, or other productive purposes other than agricultural purposes, and shall be open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter, and not otherwise. Sec. 56. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows:

(a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other means; (b) Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers; (d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes. x x x. Sec. 58. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fiftysix shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the Governor-General, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under this chapter. The lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) Section 6 of Act No. 2874 authorized the Governor-General to "classify lands of the public domain into x x x alienable or disposable"47 lands. Section 7 of the Act empowered the Governor-General to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of the Act limited alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been "officially delimited and classified." Section 56 of Act No. 2874 stated that lands "disposable under this title48 shall be classified" as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands, as well as other lands. All these lands, however, must be suitable for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive non-agricultural purposes. These provisions vested upon the GovernorGeneral the power to classify inalienable lands of the public domain into disposable lands of the public domain. These provisions also empowered the Governor-General to classify further such disposable lands of the public domain into government reclaimed, foreshore or marshy lands of the public domain, as well as other non-agricultural lands. Section 58 of Act No. 2874 categorically mandated that disposable lands of the public domain classified as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands "shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise." The GovernorGeneral, before allowing the lease of these lands to private parties, must formally declare that the lands were "not necessary for the public service." Act No. 2874 reiterated the State policy to lease and not to sell government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, a policy first enunciated in 1907 in Act No. 1654. Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain that the government could not sell to private parties. The rationale behind this State policy is obvious. Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy public lands for non-agricultural purposes retain their inherent potential as areas for public service. This is the reason the government prohibited the sale, and only allowed the lease, of these lands to private parties. The State always reserved these lands for some future public service.

Act No. 2874 did not authorize the reclassification of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 56 (d). Lands falling under Section 56 (d) were the only lands for non-agricultural purposes the government could sell to private parties. Thus, under Act No. 2874, the government could not sell government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands to private parties, unless the legislature passed a law allowing their sale.49 Act No. 2874 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea pursuant to Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government permission remained private lands. Dispositions under the 1935 Constitution On May 14, 1935, the 1935 Constitution took effect upon its ratification by the Filipino people. The 1935 Constitution, in adopting the Regalian doctrine, declared in Section 1, Article XIII, that "Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant." (Emphasis supplied) The 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural lands, which were the only natural resources the State could alienate. Thus, foreshore lands, considered part of the State's natural resources, became inalienable by constitutional fiat, available only for lease for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. The government could alienate foreshore lands only after these lands were reclaimed and classified as alienable agricultural lands of the public domain. Government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain, being neither timber nor mineral lands, fell under the classification of public agricultural lands.50 However, government reclaimed and marshy lands, although subject to classification as disposable public agricultural lands, could only be leased and not sold to private parties because of Act No. 2874. The prohibition on private parties from acquiring ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain was only a statutory prohibition and the legislature could therefore remove such prohibition. The 1935 Constitution did not prohibit individuals and corporations from acquiring government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain that were classified as agricultural lands under existing public land laws. Section 2, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution provided as follows: "Section 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease, or hold public agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty four hectares, nor may any individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty hectares, or by lease in excess of one

thousand and twenty-four hectares, or by homestead in excess of twentyfour hectares. Lands adapted to grazing, not exceeding two thousand hectares, may be leased to an individual, private corporation, or association." (Emphasis supplied) Still, after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, the legislature did not repeal Section 58 of Act No. 2874 to open for sale to private parties government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain. On the contrary, the legislature continued the long established State policy of retaining for the government title and ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain. Commonwealth Act No. 141 of the Philippine National Assembly On November 7, 1936, the National Assembly approved Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land Act, which compiled the then existing laws on lands of the public domain. CA No. 141, as amended, remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands.51 Section 6 of CA No. 141 empowers the President to classify lands of the public domain into "alienable or disposable"52 lands of the public domain, which prior to such classification are inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Section 7 of CA No. 141 authorizes the President to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession." Section 8 of CA No. 141 states that the government can declare open for disposition or concession only lands that are "officially delimited and classified." Sections 6, 7 and 8 of CA No. 141 read as follows: "Sec. 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 like manner transfer such lands from one class to another,53 for the purpose of their administration and disposition. Sec. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act. Sec. 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. x x x."

Thus, before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of the public domain, the President must first officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable, and then declare them open to disposition or concession. There must be no law reserving these lands for public or quasi-public uses. The salient provisions of CA No. 141, on government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, are as follows: "Sec. 58. Any tract of land of the public domain which, being neither timber nor mineral land, is intended to be used for residential purposes or for commercial, industrial, or other productive purposes other than agricultural, and is open to disposition or concession, shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise. Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a) Lands reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling, or other means; (b) Foreshore; (c) Marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon the shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers; (d) Lands not included in any of the foregoing classes. Sec. 60. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold, as the case may be, to any person, corporation, or association authorized to purchase or lease public lands for agricultural purposes. x x x. Sec. 61. The lands comprised in classes (a), (b), and (c) of section fiftynine shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise, as soon as the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture, shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service and are open to disposition under this chapter. The lands included in class (d) may be disposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied) Section 61 of CA No. 141 readopted, after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, Section 58 of Act No. 2874 prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain. All these lands are intended for residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural purposes. As before, Section 61 allowed only the lease of such lands to private parties. The government could sell to private parties only lands falling under Section 59 (d) of CA No. 141, or those lands for nonagricultural purposes not classified as government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain. Foreshore lands, however, became inalienable under the 1935 Constitution which only allowed the lease of these lands to qualified private parties. Section 58 of CA No. 141 expressly states that disposable lands of the public domain intended for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive purposes other than agricultural "shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not

otherwise." Under Section 10 of CA No. 141, the term "disposition" includes lease of the land. Any disposition of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes must comply with Chapter IX, Title III of CA No. 141,54 unless a subsequent law amended or repealed these provisions. In his concurring opinion in the landmark case of Republic Real Estate Corporation v. Court of Appeals,55 Justice Reynato S. Puno summarized succinctly the law on this matter, as follows: "Foreshore lands are lands of public dominion intended for public use. So too are lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means. Act 1654 mandated that the control and disposition of the foreshore and lands under water remained in the national government. Said law allowed only the 'leasing' of reclaimed land. The Public Land Acts of 1919 and 1936 also declared that the foreshore and lands reclaimed by the government were to be "disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise." Before leasing, however, the Governor-General, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, had first to determine that the land reclaimed was not necessary for the public service. This requisite must have been met before the land could be disposed of. But even then, the foreshore and lands under water were not to be alienated and sold to private parties. The disposition of the reclaimed land was only by lease. The land remained property of the State." (Emphasis supplied) As observed by Justice Puno in his concurring opinion, "Commonwealth Act No. 141 has remained in effect at present." The State policy prohibiting the sale to private parties of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain, first implemented in 1907 was thus reaffirmed in CA No. 141 after the 1935 Constitution took effect. The prohibition on the sale of foreshore lands, however, became a constitutional edict under the 1935 Constitution. Foreshore lands became inalienable as natural resources of the State, unless reclaimed by the government and classified as agricultural lands of the public domain, in which case they would fall under the classification of government reclaimed lands. After the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain continued to be only leased and not sold to private parties.56 These lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the public domain the government could not sell to private parties. Since then and until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale. CA No. 141 does not authorize the President to reclassify government reclaimed and marshy lands into other nonagricultural lands under Section 59 (d). Lands classified under Section 59 (d) are the only alienable or disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes that the government could sell to private parties. Moreover, Section 60 of CA No. 141 expressly requires congressional authority before lands under Section 59 that the government previously transferred to government units or entities could be sold to private parties. Section 60 of CA No. 141 declares that "Sec. 60. x x x The area so leased or sold shall be such as shall, in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, be reasonably necessary

for the purposes for which such sale or lease is requested, and shall not exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares: Provided, however, That this limitation shall not apply to grants, donations, or transfers made to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government for the purposes deemed by said entities conducive to the public interest; but the land so granted, donated, or transferred to a province, municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress: x x x." (Emphasis supplied) The congressional authority required in Section 60 of CA No. 141 mirrors the legislative authority required in Section 56 of Act No. 2874. One reason for the congressional authority is that Section 60 of CA No. 141 exempted government units and entities from the maximum area of public lands that could be acquired from the State. These government units and entities should not just turn around and sell these lands to private parties in violation of constitutional or statutory limitations. Otherwise, the transfer of lands for non-agricultural purposes to government units and entities could be used to circumvent constitutional limitations on ownership of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. In the same manner, such transfers could also be used to evade the statutory prohibition in CA No. 141 on the sale of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain to private parties. Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes by operation of law a lien on these lands.57 In case of sale or lease of disposable lands of the public domain falling under Section 59 of CA No. 141, Sections 63 and 67 require a public bidding. Sections 63 and 67 of CA No. 141 provide as follows: "Sec. 63. Whenever it is decided that lands covered by this chapter are not needed for public purposes, the Director of Lands shall ask the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (now the Secretary of Natural Resources) for authority to dispose of the same. Upon receipt of such authority, the Director of Lands shall give notice by public advertisement in the same manner as in the case of leases or sales of agricultural public land, x x x. Sec. 67. The lease or sale shall be made by oral bidding; and adjudication shall be made to the highest bidder. x x x." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, CA No. 141 mandates the Government to put to public auction all leases or sales of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain.58 Like Act No. 1654 and Act No. 2874 before it, CA No. 141 did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Private parties could still reclaim portions of the sea with government permission. However, the reclaimed land could become private land only if classified as alienable agricultural land of the public domain open to disposition under CA No. 141. The 1935 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural lands. The Civil Code of 1950 The Civil Code of 1950 readopted substantially the definition of property of public dominion found in the Civil Code of 1889. Articles 420 and 422 of the Civil Code of 1950 state that

"Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. x x x. Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." Again, the government must formally declare that the property of public dominion is no longer needed for public use or public service, before the same could be classified as patrimonial property of the State.59 In the case of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain, the declaration of their being disposable, as well as the manner of their disposition, is governed by the applicable provisions of CA No. 141. Like the Civil Code of 1889, the Civil Code of 1950 included as property of public dominion those properties of the State which, without being for public use, are intended for public service or the "development of the national wealth." Thus, government reclaimed and marshy lands of the State, even if not employed for public use or public service, if developed to enhance the national wealth, are classified as property of public dominion. Dispositions under the 1973 Constitution The 1973 Constitution, which took effect on January 17, 1973, likewise adopted the Regalian doctrine. Section 8, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution stated that "Sec. 8. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant." (Emphasis supplied) The 1973 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources with the exception of "agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain." In contrast, the 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except "public agricultural lands." However, the term "public agricultural lands" in the 1935 Constitution encompassed industrial, commercial, residential and resettlement lands of the public domain.60 If the land of public domain were neither timber nor mineral land, it would fall under the classification of agricultural land of the public domain. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, therefore, prohibited the alienation of all natural resources except agricultural lands of the public domain.

The 1973 Constitution, however, limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Private corporations, even if wholly owned by Philippine citizens, were no longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain unlike in the 1935 Constitution. Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution declared that "Sec. 11. The Batasang Pambansa, taking into account conservation, ecological, and development requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of land of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to, any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions therefor. No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectares in area nor may any citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire by purchase, homestead or grant, in excess of twenty-four hectares. No private corporation or association may hold by lease, concession, license or permit, timber or forest lands and other timber or forest resources in excess of one hundred thousand hectares. However, such area may be increased by the Batasang Pambansa upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, under the 1973 Constitution, private corporations could hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. Only individuals could now acquire alienable lands of the public domain, and private corporations became absolutely barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. The constitutional ban extended to all kinds of alienable lands of the public domain, while the statutory ban under CA No. 141 applied only to government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1084 Creating the Public Estates Authority On February 4, 1977, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1084 creating PEA, a wholly government owned and controlled corporation with a special charter. Sections 4 and 8 of PD No. 1084, vests PEA with the following purposes and powers: "Sec. 4. Purpose. The Authority is hereby created for the following purposes: (a) To reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas, by dredging, filling or other means, or to acquire reclaimed land; (b) To develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands, buildings, estates and other forms of real property, owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government; (c) To provide for, operate or administer such service as may be necessary for the efficient, economical and beneficial utilization of the above properties. Sec. 5. Powers and functions of the Authority. The Authority shall, in carrying out the purposes for which it is created, have the following powers and functions: (a)To prescribe its by-laws.

xxx (i) To hold lands of the public domain in excess of the area permitted to private corporations by statute. (j) To reclaim lands and to construct work across, or otherwise, any stream, watercourse, canal, ditch, flume x x x. xxx (o) To perform such acts and exercise such functions as may be necessary for the attainment of the purposes and objectives herein specified." (Emphasis supplied) PD No. 1084 authorizes PEA to reclaim both foreshore and submerged areas of the public domain. Foreshore areas are those covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide.61 Submerged areas are those permanently under water regardless of the ebb and flow of the tide.62 Foreshore and submerged areas indisputably belong to the public domain63 and are inalienable unless reclaimed, classified as alienable lands open to disposition, and further declared no longer needed for public service. The ban in the 1973 Constitution on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain did not apply to PEA since it was then, and until today, a fully owned government corporation. The constitutional ban applied then, as it still applies now, only to "private corporations and associations." PD No. 1084 expressly empowers PEA "to hold lands of the public domain" even "in excess of the area permitted to private corporations by statute." Thus, PEA can hold title to private lands, as well as title to lands of the public domain. In order for PEA to sell its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain, there must be legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these lands. This legislative authority is necessary in view of Section 60 of CA No.141, which states "Sec. 60. x x x; but the land so granted, donated or transferred to a province, municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress; x x x." (Emphasis supplied) Without such legislative authority, PEA could not sell but only lease its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Nevertheless, any legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain would be subject to the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. Hence, such legislative authority could only benefit private individuals. Dispositions under the 1987 Constitution The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions before it, has adopted the Regalian doctrine. The 1987 Constitution declares that all natural resources are "owned by the State," and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be alienated. Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution state that

"Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. x x x. Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twentyfive years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant. Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor." (Emphasis supplied) The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Like the 1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law governing the lease to private corporations of reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain is still CA No. 141. The Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban The rationale behind the constitutional ban on corporations from acquiring, except through lease, alienable lands of the public domain is not well understood. During the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the commissioners probed the rationale behind this ban, thus: "FR. BERNAS: Mr. Vice-President, my questions have reference to page 3, line 5 which says: `No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.' If we recall, this provision did not exist under the 1935 Constitution, but this was introduced in the 1973 Constitution. In effect, it prohibits private corporations from acquiring alienable public lands. But it has not been very clear in jurisprudence what the reason for this is. In some of the cases decided in 1982 and 1983, it was indicated that the purpose of this is to prevent large landholdings. Is that the intent of this provision? MR. VILLEGAS: I think that is the spirit of the provision.

FR. BERNAS: In existing decisions involving the Iglesia ni Cristo, there were instances where the Iglesia ni Cristo was not allowed to acquire a mere 313square meter land where a chapel stood because the Supreme Court said it would be in violation of this." (Emphasis supplied) In Ayog v. Cusi,64 the Court explained the rationale behind this constitutional ban in this way: "Indeed, one purpose of the constitutional prohibition against purchases of public agricultural lands by private corporations is to equitably diffuse land ownership or to encourage 'owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm' and to prevent a recurrence of cases like the instant case. Huge landholdings by corporations or private persons had spawned social unrest." However, if the constitutional intent is to prevent huge landholdings, the Constitution could have simply limited the size of alienable lands of the public domain that corporations could acquire. The Constitution could have followed the limitations on individuals, who could acquire not more than 24 hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the 1973 Constitution, and not more than 12 hectares under the 1987 Constitution. If the constitutional intent is to encourage economic family-size farms, placing the land in the name of a corporation would be more effective in preventing the break-up of farmlands. If the farmland is registered in the name of a corporation, upon the death of the owner, his heirs would inherit shares in the corporation instead of subdivided parcels of the farmland. This would prevent the continuing break-up of farmlands into smaller and smaller plots from one generation to the next. In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban, individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more alienable public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional intent is safeguarded by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional intent is removed. The available alienable public lands are gradually decreasing in the face of an ever-growing population. The most effective way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would seem, is the practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban. The Amended Joint Venture Agreement The subject matter of the Amended JVA, as stated in its second Whereas clause, consists of three properties, namely:

1. "[T]hree partially reclaimed and substantially eroded islands along Emilio Aguinaldo Boulevard in Paranaque and Las Pinas, Metro Manila, with a combined titled area of 1,578,441 square meters;" 2. "[A]nother area of 2,421,559 square meters contiguous to the three islands;" and 3. "[A]t AMARI's option as approved by PEA, an additional 350 hectares more or less to regularize the configuration of the reclaimed area."65 PEA confirms that the Amended JVA involves "the development of the Freedom Islands and further reclamation of about 250 hectares x x x," plus an option "granted to AMARI to subsequently reclaim another 350 hectares x x x."66 In short, the Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares of the 750-hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the 592.15 hectares are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay. Under the Amended JVA, AMARI will reimburse PEA the sum of P1,894,129,200.00 for PEA's "actual cost" in partially reclaiming the Freedom Islands. AMARI will also complete, at its own expense, the reclamation of the Freedom Islands. AMARI will further shoulder all the reclamation costs of all the other areas, totaling 592.15 hectares, still to be reclaimed. AMARI and PEA will share, in the proportion of 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively, the total net usable area which is defined in the Amended JVA as the total reclaimed area less 30 percent earmarked for common areas. Title to AMARI's share in the net usable area, totaling 367.5 hectares, will be issued in the name of AMARI. Section 5.2 (c) of the Amended JVA provides that "x x x, PEA shall have the duty to execute without delay the necessary deed of transfer or conveyance of the title pertaining to AMARI's Land share based on the Land Allocation Plan. PEA, when requested in writing by AMARI, shall then cause the issuance and delivery of the proper certificates of title covering AMARI's Land Share in the name of AMARI, x x x; provided, that if more than seventy percent (70%) of the titled area at any given time pertains to AMARI, PEA shall deliver to AMARI only seventy percent (70%) of the titles pertaining to AMARI, until such time when a corresponding proportionate area of additional land pertaining to PEA has been titled." (Emphasis supplied) Indisputably, under the Amended JVA AMARI will acquire and own a maximum of 367.5 hectares of reclaimed land which will be titled in its name. To implement the Amended JVA, PEA delegated to the unincorporated PEA-AMARI joint venture PEA's statutory authority, rights and privileges to reclaim foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay. Section 3.2.a of the Amended JVA states that "PEA hereby contributes to the joint venture its rights and privileges to perform Rawland Reclamation and Horizontal Development as well as own the Reclamation Area, thereby granting the Joint Venture the full and exclusive right, authority and privilege to undertake the Project in accordance with the Master Development Plan."

The Amended JVA is the product of a renegotiation of the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 and its supplemental agreement dated August 9, 1995. The Threshold Issue The threshold issue is whether AMARI, a private corporation, can acquire and own under the Amended JVA 367.5 hectares of reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay in view of Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which state that: "Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. x x x. xxx Section 3. x x x Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, x x x."(Emphasis supplied) Classification of Reclaimed Foreshore and Submerged Areas PEA readily concedes that lands reclaimed from foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay are alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. In its Memorandum,67 PEA admits that "Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain: 'Sec. 59. The lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows: (a) Lands reclaimed by the government by dredging, filling, or other means; x x x.'" (Emphasis supplied) Likewise, the Legal Task Force68 constituted under Presidential Administrative Order No. 365 admitted in its Report and Recommendation to then President Fidel V. Ramos, "[R]eclaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain."69 The Legal Task Force concluded that "D. Conclusion Reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain. However, by statutory authority, the rights of ownership and disposition over reclaimed lands have been transferred to PEA, by virtue of which PEA, as owner, may validly convey the same to any qualified person without violating the Constitution or any statute.

The constitutional provision prohibiting private corporations from holding public land, except by lease (Sec. 3, Art. XVII,70 1987 Constitution), does not apply to reclaimed lands whose ownership has passed on to PEA by statutory grant." Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, the foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the "lands of the public domain, waters x x x and other natural resources" and consequently "owned by the State." As such, foreshore and submerged areas "shall not be alienated," unless they are classified as "agricultural lands" of the public domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by PEA does not convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession. Moreover, these reclaimed lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public use.71 Section 8 of CA No. 141 provides that "only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and classified."72 The President has the authority to classify inalienable lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, pursuant to Section 6 of CA No. 141. In Laurel vs. Garcia,73 the Executive Department attempted to sell the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan, which was acquired by the Philippine Government for use as the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. Although the Chancery had transferred to another location thirteen years earlier, the Court still ruled that, under Article 42274 of the Civil Code, a property of public dominion retains such character until formally declared otherwise. The Court ruled that "The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]. A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership 'until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such' (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]." (Emphasis supplied) PD No. 1085, issued on February 4, 1977, authorized the issuance of special land patents for lands reclaimed by PEA from the foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay. On January 19, 1988 then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 in the name of PEA for the 157.84 hectares comprising the partially reclaimed Freedom Islands. Subsequently, on April 9, 1999 the Register of Deeds of the Municipality of Paranaque issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311 and 7312 in the name of PEA pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529 authorizing the issuance of certificates of title corresponding to land patents. To this day, these certificates of title are still in the name of PEA. PD No. 1085, coupled with President Aquino's actual issuance of a special patent covering the Freedom Islands, is equivalent to an official proclamation classifying the Freedom Islands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. PD No. 1085 and President Aquino's issuance of a land patent also constitute a declaration that the Freedom Islands are no longer needed for public service. The Freedom Islands are thus alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition or concession to qualified parties. At the time then President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, PEA had already reclaimed the Freedom Islands although subsequently there were partial erosions on some areas. The government had also completed the necessary surveys on these islands. Thus, the Freedom Islands were no longer part of Manila Bay but part of the land mass.

Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into "agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks." Being neither timber, mineral, nor national park lands, the reclaimed Freedom Islands necessarily fall under the classification of agricultural lands of the public domain. Under the 1987 Constitution, agricultural lands of the public domain are the only natural resources that the State may alienate to qualified private parties. All other natural resources, such as the seas or bays, are "waters x x x owned by the State" forming part of the public domain, and are inalienable pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. AMARI claims that the Freedom Islands are private lands because CDCP, then a private corporation, reclaimed the islands under a contract dated November 20, 1973 with the Commissioner of Public Highways. AMARI, citing Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, argues that "if the ownership of reclaimed lands may be given to the party constructing the works, then it cannot be said that reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain which the State may not alienate."75 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters reads as follows: "Article 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works constructed by the State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons, with proper permission, shall become the property of the party constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." (Emphasis supplied) Under Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, private parties could reclaim from the sea only with "proper permission" from the State. Private parties could own the reclaimed land only if not "otherwise provided by the terms of the grant of authority." This clearly meant that no one could reclaim from the sea without permission from the State because the sea is property of public dominion. It also meant that the State could grant or withhold ownership of the reclaimed land because any reclaimed land, like the sea from which it emerged, belonged to the State. Thus, a private person reclaiming from the sea without permission from the State could not acquire ownership of the reclaimed land which would remain property of public dominion like the sea it replaced.76 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 adopted the time-honored principle of land ownership that "all lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."77 Article 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters must be read together with laws subsequently enacted on the disposition of public lands. In particular, CA No. 141 requires that lands of the public domain must first be classified as alienable or disposable before the government can alienate them. These lands must not be reserved for public or quasipublic purposes.78 Moreover, the contract between CDCP and the government was executed after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution which barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. This contract could not have converted the Freedom Islands into private lands of a private corporation. Presidential Decree No. 3-A, issued on January 11, 1973, revoked all laws authorizing the reclamation of areas under water and revested solely in the National Government the power to reclaim lands. Section 1 of PD No. 3-A declared that "The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the reclamation of areas under water, whether foreshore or inland, shall be limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under a proper contract. (Emphasis supplied) x x x."

PD No. 3-A repealed Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 because reclamation of areas under water could now be undertaken only by the National Government or by a person contracted by the National Government. Private parties may reclaim from the sea only under a contract with the National Government, and no longer by grant or permission as provided in Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Executive Order No. 525, issued on February 14, 1979, designated PEA as the National Government's implementing arm to undertake "all reclamation projects of the government," which "shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity." Under such contract, a private party receives compensation for reclamation services rendered to PEA. Payment to the contractor may be in cash, or in kind consisting of portions of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. The reclaimed land can be used as payment in kind only if the reclaimed land is first classified as alienable or disposable land open to disposition, and then declared no longer needed for public service. The Amended JVA covers not only the Freedom Islands, but also an additional 592.15 hectares which are still submerged and forming part of Manila Bay. There is no legislative or Presidential act classifying these submerged areas as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. These submerged areas are not covered by any patent or certificate of title. There can be no dispute that these submerged areas form part of the public domain, and in their present state are inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Until reclaimed from the sea, these submerged areas are, under the Constitution, "waters x x x owned by the State," forming part of the public domain and consequently inalienable. Only when actually reclaimed from the sea can these submerged areas be classified as public agricultural lands, which under the Constitution are the only natural resources that the State may alienate. Once reclaimed and transformed into public agricultural lands, the government may then officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition. Thereafter, the government may declare these lands no longer needed for public service. Only then can these reclaimed lands be considered alienable or disposable lands of the public domain and within the commerce of man. The classification of PEA's reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands into alienable or disposable lands open to disposition is necessary because PEA is tasked under its charter to undertake public services that require the use of lands of the public domain. Under Section 5 of PD No. 1084, the functions of PEA include the following: "[T]o own or operate railroads, tramways and other kinds of land transportation, x x x; [T]o construct, maintain and operate such systems of sanitary sewers as may be necessary; [T]o construct, maintain and operate such storm drains as may be necessary." PEA is empowered to issue "rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper use by private parties of any or all of the highways, roads, utilities, buildings and/or any of its properties and to impose or collect fees or tolls for their use." Thus, part of the reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands held by the PEA would actually be needed for public use or service since many of the functions imposed on PEA by its charter constitute essential public services. Moreover, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 525 provides that PEA "shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government." The same section also states that "[A]ll reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; x x x." Thus, under EO No. 525, in relation to PD No. 3-A and PD No.1084, PEA became the primary implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged lands of the public domain. EO No. 525 recognized PEA as the government entity "to undertake the reclamation of lands and ensure their maximum

utilization in promoting public welfare and interests."79 Since large portions of these reclaimed lands would obviously be needed for public service, there must be a formal declaration segregating reclaimed lands no longer needed for public service from those still needed for public service.1wphi1.nt Section 3 of EO No. 525, by declaring that all lands reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be owned by the PEA," could not automatically operate to classify inalienable lands into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Otherwise, reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands of the public domain would automatically become alienable once reclaimed by PEA, whether or not classified as alienable or disposable. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987, a later law than either PD No. 1084 or EO No. 525, vests in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR" for brevity) the following powers and functions: "Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The Department shall: (1) x x x xxx (4) Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable public lands, mineral resources and, in the process of exercising such control, impose appropriate taxes, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect such revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources; xxx (14) Promulgate rules, regulations and guidelines on the issuance of licenses, permits, concessions, lease agreements and such other privileges concerning the development, exploration and utilization of the country's marine, freshwater, and brackish water and over all aquatic resources of the country and shall continue to oversee, supervise and police our natural resources; cancel or cause to cancel such privileges upon failure, non-compliance or violations of any regulation, order, and for all other causes which are in furtherance of the conservation of natural resources and supportive of the national interest; (15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with appropriate agencies."80 (Emphasis supplied) As manager, conservator and overseer of the natural resources of the State, DENR exercises "supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands." DENR also exercises "exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain." Thus, DENR decides whether areas under water, like foreshore or submerged areas of Manila Bay, should be reclaimed or not. This means that PEA needs authorization from DENR before PEA can undertake reclamation projects in Manila Bay, or in any part of the country.

DENR also exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of all lands of the public domain. Hence, DENR decides whether reclaimed lands of PEA should be classified as alienable under Sections 681 and 782 of CA No. 141. Once DENR decides that the reclaimed lands should be so classified, it then recommends to the President the issuance of a proclamation classifying the lands as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain open to disposition. We note that then DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. countersigned Special Patent No. 3517 in compliance with the Revised Administrative Code and Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141. In short, DENR is vested with the power to authorize the reclamation of areas under water, while PEA is vested with the power to undertake the physical reclamation of areas under water, whether directly or through private contractors. DENR is also empowered to classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands subject to the approval of the President. On the other hand, PEA is tasked to develop, sell or lease the reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain. Clearly, the mere physical act of reclamation by PEA of foreshore or submerged areas does not make the reclaimed lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA. Likewise, the mere transfer by the National Government of lands of the public domain to PEA does not make the lands alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA. Absent two official acts a classification that these lands are alienable or disposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not needed for public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands of the public domain. Only such an official classification and formal declaration can convert reclaimed lands into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition under the Constitution, Title I and Title III83 of CA No. 141 and other applicable laws.84 PEA's Authority to Sell Reclaimed Lands PEA, like the Legal Task Force, argues that as alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, the reclaimed lands shall be disposed of in accordance with CA No. 141, the Public Land Act. PEA, citing Section 60 of CA No. 141, admits that reclaimed lands transferred to a branch or subdivision of the government "shall not be alienated, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress: x x x."85 (Emphasis by PEA) In Laurel vs. Garcia,86 the Court cited Section 48 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which states that "Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: x x x." Thus, the Court concluded that a law is needed to convey any real property belonging to the Government. The Court declared that "It is not for the President to convey real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence." (Emphasis supplied)

PEA contends that PD No. 1085 and EO No. 525 constitute the legislative authority allowing PEA to sell its reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085, issued on February 4, 1977, provides that "The land reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore area of Manila Bay pursuant to the contract for the reclamation and construction of the ManilaCavite Coastal Road Project between the Republic of the Philippines and the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines dated November 20, 1973 and/or any other contract or reclamation covering the same area is hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Public Estates Authority established pursuant to PD No. 1084; Provided, however, That the rights and interests of the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines pursuant to the aforesaid contract shall be recognized and respected. Henceforth, the Public Estates Authority shall exercise the rights and assume the obligations of the Republic of the Philippines (Department of Public Highways) arising from, or incident to, the aforesaid contract between the Republic of the Philippines and the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines. In consideration of the foregoing transfer and assignment, the Public Estates Authority shall issue in favor of the Republic of the Philippines the corresponding shares of stock in said entity with an issued value of said shares of stock (which) shall be deemed fully paid and non-assessable. The Secretary of Public Highways and the General Manager of the Public Estates Authority shall execute such contracts or agreements, including appropriate agreements with the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, as may be necessary to implement the above. Special land patent/patents shall be issued by the Secretary of Natural Resources in favor of the Public Estates Authority without prejudice to the subsequent transfer to the contractor or his assignees of such portion or portions of the land reclaimed or to be reclaimed as provided for in the above-mentioned contract. On the basis of such patents, the Land Registration Commission shall issue the corresponding certificate of title." (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, Section 3 of EO No. 525, issued on February 14, 1979, provides that "Sec. 3. All lands reclaimed by PEA shall belong to or be owned by the PEA which shall be responsible for its administration, development, utilization or disposition in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084. Any and all income that the PEA may derive from the sale, lease or use of reclaimed lands shall be used in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084." There is no express authority under either PD No. 1085 or EO No. 525 for PEA to sell its reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085 merely transferred "ownership and administration" of lands reclaimed from Manila Bay to PEA, while EO No. 525 declared that lands reclaimed by PEA "shall belong to or be owned by PEA." EO No. 525 expressly states that PEA should dispose of its reclaimed lands "in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084," the charter of PEA.

PEA's charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kinds of lands x x x owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government."87 (Emphasis supplied) There is, therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands, whether patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to private parties its patrimonial properties in accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the sale of PEA's patrimonial lands. PEA may also sell its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private individuals since, with the legislative authority, there is no longer any statutory prohibition against such sales and the constitutional ban does not apply to individuals. PEA, however, cannot sell any of its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private corporations since Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits such sales. The legislative authority benefits only individuals. Private corporations remain barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, including government reclaimed lands. The provision in PD No. 1085 stating that portions of the reclaimed lands could be transferred by PEA to the "contractor or his assignees" (Emphasis supplied) would not apply to private corporations but only to individuals because of the constitutional ban. Otherwise, the provisions of PD No. 1085 would violate both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. The requirement of public auction in the sale of reclaimed lands Assuming the reclaimed lands of PEA are classified as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition, and further declared no longer needed for public service, PEA would have to conduct a public bidding in selling or leasing these lands. PEA must observe the provisions of Sections 63 and 67 of CA No. 141 requiring public auction, in the absence of a law exempting PEA from holding a public auction.88 Special Patent No. 3517 expressly states that the patent is issued by authority of the Constitution and PD No. 1084, "supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended." This is an acknowledgment that the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the disposition of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain unless otherwise provided by law. Executive Order No. 654,89 which authorizes PEA "to determine the kind and manner of payment for the transfer" of its assets and properties, does not exempt PEA from the requirement of public auction. EO No. 654 merely authorizes PEA to decide the mode of payment, whether in kind and in installment, but does not authorize PEA to dispense with public auction. Moreover, under Section 79 of PD No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code, the government is required to sell valuable government property through public bidding. Section 79 of PD No. 1445 mandates that "Section 79. When government property has become unserviceable for any cause, or is no longer needed, it shall, upon application of the officer accountable therefor, be inspected by the head of the agency or his duly authorized representative in the presence of the auditor concerned and, if found to be valueless or unsaleable, it may be destroyed in their presence. If found to be valuable, it may be sold at public auction to the highest bidder under the supervision of the proper committee on award or similar body in the presence of the auditor concerned or other authorized representative of the Commission, after advertising by printed notice in the Official Gazette, or for not less than three consecutive days in any newspaper of general circulation, or where the value of the property does not warrant the expense of publication, by notices posted for a like period in at least three public places in

the locality where the property is to be sold. In the event that the public auction fails, the property may be sold at a private sale at such price as may be fixed by the same committee or body concerned and approved by the Commission." It is only when the public auction fails that a negotiated sale is allowed, in which case the Commission on Audit must approve the selling price.90 The Commission on Audit implements Section 79 of the Government Auditing Code through Circular No. 89-29691 dated January 27, 1989. This circular emphasizes that government assets must be disposed of only through public auction, and a negotiated sale can be resorted to only in case of "failure of public auction." At the public auction sale, only Philippine citizens are qualified to bid for PEA's reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. Private corporations are barred from bidding at the auction sale of any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA originally scheduled a public bidding for the Freedom Islands on December 10, 1991. PEA imposed a condition that the winning bidder should reclaim another 250 hectares of submerged areas to regularize the shape of the Freedom Islands, under a 60-40 sharing of the additional reclaimed areas in favor of the winning bidder.92 No one, however, submitted a bid. On December 23, 1994, the Government Corporate Counsel advised PEA it could sell the Freedom Islands through negotiation, without need of another public bidding, because of the failure of the public bidding on December 10, 1991.93 However, the original JVA dated April 25, 1995 covered not only the Freedom Islands and the additional 250 hectares still to be reclaimed, it also granted an option to AMARI to reclaim another 350 hectares. The original JVA, a negotiated contract, enlarged the reclamation area to 750 hectares.94 The failure of public bidding on December 10, 1991, involving only 407.84 hectares,95 is not a valid justification for a negotiated sale of 750 hectares, almost double the area publicly auctioned. Besides, the failure of public bidding happened on December 10, 1991, more than three years before the signing of the original JVA on April 25, 1995. The economic situation in the country had greatly improved during the intervening period. Reclamation under the BOT Law and the Local Government Code The constitutional prohibition in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is absolute and clear: "Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, x x x." Even Republic Act No. 6957 ("BOT Law," for brevity), cited by PEA and AMARI as legislative authority to sell reclaimed lands to private parties, recognizes the constitutional ban. Section 6 of RA No. 6957 states "Sec. 6. Repayment Scheme. - For the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of any infrastructure projects undertaken through the buildoperate-and-transfer arrangement or any of its variations pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the project proponent x x x may likewise be repaid in the form of a share in the revenue of the project or other non-monetary payments, such as, but not limited to, the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land, subject to the constitutional requirements with respect to the ownership of the land: x x x." (Emphasis supplied) A private corporation, even one that undertakes the physical reclamation of a government BOT project, cannot acquire reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain in view of the constitutional ban.

Section 302 of the Local Government Code, also mentioned by PEA and AMARI, authorizes local governments in land reclamation projects to pay the contractor or developer in kind consisting of a percentage of the reclaimed land, to wit: "Section 302. Financing, Construction, Maintenance, Operation, Management of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector. x x x xxx In case of land reclamation or construction of industrial estates, the repayment plan may consist of the grant of a portion or percentage of the reclaimed land or the industrial estate constructed." Although Section 302 of the Local Government Code does not contain a proviso similar to that of the BOT Law, the constitutional restrictions on land ownership automatically apply even though not expressly mentioned in the Local Government Code. Thus, under either the BOT Law or the Local Government Code, the contractor or developer, if a corporate entity, can only be paid with leaseholds on portions of the reclaimed land. If the contractor or developer is an individual, portions of the reclaimed land, not exceeding 12 hectares96 of non-agricultural lands, may be conveyed to him in ownership in view of the legislative authority allowing such conveyance. This is the only way these provisions of the BOT Law and the Local Government Code can avoid a direct collision with Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Registration of lands of the public domain Finally, PEA theorizes that the "act of conveying the ownership of the reclaimed lands to public respondent PEA transformed such lands of the public domain to private lands." This theory is echoed by AMARI which maintains that the "issuance of the special patent leading to the eventual issuance of title takes the subject land away from the land of public domain and converts the property into patrimonial or private property." In short, PEA and AMARI contend that with the issuance of Special Patent No. 3517 and the corresponding certificates of titles, the 157.84 hectares comprising the Freedom Islands have become private lands of PEA. In support of their theory, PEA and AMARI cite the following rulings of the Court: 1. Sumail v. Judge of CFI of Cotabato,97 where the Court held "Once the patent was granted and the corresponding certificate of title was issued, the land ceased to be part of the public domain and became private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction." 2. Lee Hong Hok v. David,98 where the Court declared "After the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title based on a public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the operation of Republic Act 496 subject to all the safeguards provided therein."3. Heirs of Gregorio Tengco v. Heirs of Jose Aliwalas,99 where the Court ruled and

"While the Director of Lands has the power to review homestead patents, he may do so only so long as the land remains part of the public domain and continues to be under his exclusive control; but once the patent is registered and a certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction." 4. Manalo v. Intermediate Appellate Court,100 where the Court held "When the lots in dispute were certified as disposable on May 19, 1971, and free patents were issued covering the same in favor of the private respondents, the said lots ceased to be part of the public domain and, therefore, the Director of Lands lost jurisdiction over the same." 5.Republic v. Court of Appeals,101 where the Court stated "Proclamation No. 350, dated October 9, 1956, of President Magsaysay legally effected a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center, Bureau of Medical Services, Department of Health, of the whole lot, validly sufficient for initial registration under the Land Registration Act. Such land grant is constitutive of a 'fee simple' title or absolute title in favor of petitioner Mindanao Medical Center. Thus, Section 122 of the Act, which governs the registration of grants or patents involving public lands, provides that 'Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the Government of the United States or to the Government of the Philippines are alienated, granted or conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act (Land Registration Act, Act 496) and shall become registered lands.'" The first four cases cited involve petitions to cancel the land patents and the corresponding certificates of titles issued to private parties. These four cases uniformly hold that the Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over private lands or that upon issuance of the certificate of title the land automatically comes under the Torrens System. The fifth case cited involves the registration under the Torrens System of a 12.8-hectare public land granted by the National Government to Mindanao Medical Center, a government unit under the Department of Health. The National Government transferred the 12.8-hectare public land to serve as the site for the hospital buildings and other facilities of Mindanao Medical Center, which performed a public service. The Court affirmed the registration of the 12.8-hectare public land in the name of Mindanao Medical Center under Section 122 of Act No. 496. This fifth case is an example of a public land being registered under Act No. 496 without the land losing its character as a property of public dominion. In the instant case, the only patent and certificates of title issued are those in the name of PEA, a wholly government owned corporation performing public as well as proprietary functions. No patent or certificate of title has been issued to any private party. No one is asking the Director of Lands to cancel PEA's patent or certificates of title. In fact, the thrust of the instant petition is that PEA's certificates of title should remain with PEA, and the land covered by these certificates, being alienable lands of the public domain, should not be sold to a private corporation. Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant private or public ownership of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of ownership previously conferred by any of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership. Registration does not give the registrant a better right than what the registrant had prior to the registration.102 The registration of lands of the public

domain under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands.103 Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of the patent or issuance of the certificate of title the alienable land of the public domain automatically becomes private land cannot apply to government units and entities like PEA. The transfer of the Freedom Islands to PEA was made subject to the provisions of CA No. 141 as expressly stated in Special Patent No. 3517 issued by then President Aquino, to wit: "NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW YE, that by authority of the Constitution of the Philippines and in conformity with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1084, supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, there are hereby granted and conveyed unto the Public Estates Authority the aforesaid tracts of land containing a total area of one million nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety four (1,915,894) square meters; the technical description of which are hereto attached and made an integral part hereof." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the provisions of CA No. 141 apply to the Freedom Islands on matters not covered by PD No. 1084. Section 60 of CA No. 141 prohibits, "except when authorized by Congress," the sale of alienable lands of the public domain that are transferred to government units or entities. Section 60 of CA No. 141 constitutes, under Section 44 of PD No. 1529, a "statutory lien affecting title" of the registered land even if not annotated on the certificate of title.104 Alienable lands of the public domain held by government entities under Section 60 of CA No. 141 remain public lands because they cannot be alienated or encumbered unless Congress passes a law authorizing their disposition. Congress, however, cannot authorize the sale to private corporations of reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain because of the constitutional ban. Only individuals can benefit from such law. The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in accordance with Section 60 of CA No. 141 does not automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain into private or patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the public domain must be transferred to qualified private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become illusory if Congress can declare lands of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the hands of a government agency tasked to dispose of public lands. This will allow private corporations to acquire directly from government agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior to such law, are concededly public lands. Under EO No. 525, PEA became the central implementing agency of the National Government to reclaim foreshore and submerged areas of the public domain. Thus, EO No. 525 declares that "EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 525 Designating the Public Estates Authority as the Agency Primarily Responsible for all Reclamation Projects Whereas, there are several reclamation projects which are ongoing or being proposed to be undertaken in various parts of the country which need to be evaluated for consistency with national programs;

Whereas, there is a need to give further institutional support to the Government's declared policy to provide for a coordinated, economical and efficient reclamation of lands; Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 3-A requires that all reclamation of areas shall be limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under proper contract; Whereas, a central authority is needed to act on behalf of the National Government which shall ensure a coordinated and integrated approach in the reclamation of lands; Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 1084 creates the Public Estates Authority as a government corporation to undertake reclamation of lands and ensure their maximum utilization in promoting public welfare and interests; and Whereas, Presidential Decree No. 1416 provides the President with continuing authority to reorganize the national government including the transfer, abolition, or merger of functions and offices. NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1416, do hereby order and direct the following: Section 1. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) shall be primarily responsible for integrating, directing, and coordinating all reclamation projects for and on behalf of the National Government. All reclamation projects shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the PEA, and shall be undertaken by the PEA or through a proper contract executed by it with any person or entity; Provided, that, reclamation projects of any national government agency or entity authorized under its charter shall be undertaken in consultation with the PEA upon approval of the President. x x x ." As the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects nationwide, with authority to sell reclaimed lands, PEA took the place of DENR as the government agency charged with leasing or selling reclaimed lands of the public domain. The reclaimed lands being leased or sold by PEA are not private lands, in the same manner that DENR, when it disposes of other alienable lands, does not dispose of private lands but alienable lands of the public domain. Only when qualified private parties acquire these lands will the lands become private lands. In the hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of alienable of disposable lands of the public domain, these lands are still public, not private lands. Furthermore, PEA's charter expressly states that PEA "shall hold lands of the public domain" as well as "any and all kinds of lands." PEA can hold both lands of the public domain and private lands. Thus, the mere fact that alienable lands of the public domain like the Freedom Islands are transferred to PEA and issued land patents or certificates of title in PEA's name does not automatically make such lands private.

To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA will simply turn around, as PEA has now done under the Amended JVA, and transfer several hundreds of hectares of these reclaimed and still to be reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only one transaction. This scheme will effectively nullify the constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which was intended to diffuse equitably the ownership of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipinos, now numbering over 80 million strong. This scheme, if allowed, can even be applied to alienable agricultural lands of the public domain since PEA can "acquire x x x any and all kinds of lands." This will open the floodgates to corporations and even individuals acquiring hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the guise that in the hands of PEA these lands are private lands. This will result in corporations amassing huge landholdings never before seen in this country - creating the very evil that the constitutional ban was designed to prevent. This will completely reverse the clear direction of constitutional development in this country. The 1935 Constitution allowed private corporations to acquire not more than 1,024 hectares of public lands.105 The 1973 Constitution prohibited private corporations from acquiring any kind of public land, and the 1987 Constitution has unequivocally reiterated this prohibition. The contention of PEA and AMARI that public lands, once registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529, automatically become private lands is contrary to existing laws. Several laws authorize lands of the public domain to be registered under the Torrens System or Act No. 496, now PD No. 1529, without losing their character as public lands. Section 122 of Act No. 496, and Section 103 of PD No. 1529, respectively, provide as follows: Act No. 496 "Sec. 122. Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the x x x Government of the Philippine Islands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or the public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall become registered lands." PD No. 1529 "Sec. 103. Certificate of Title to Patents. Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree." (Emphasis supplied) Based on its legislative history, the phrase "conveyed to any person" in Section 103 of PD No. 1529 includes conveyances of public lands to public corporations. Alienable lands of the public domain "granted, donated, or transferred to a province, municipality, or branch or subdivision of the Government," as provided in Section 60 of CA No. 141, may be registered under the Torrens System pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529. Such registration, however, is expressly subject to the condition in Section 60 of CA No. 141 that the land "shall not be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when authorized by Congress." This provision refers to government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain that have been titled but still cannot be alienated or encumbered unless expressly authorized by Congress. The need for legislative authority prevents the registered land of

the public domain from becoming private land that can be disposed of to qualified private parties. The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 also recognizes that lands of the public domain may be registered under the Torrens System. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Code states "Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: (1) x x x (2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, private property purchased by the National Government for expansion of a public wharf may be titled in the name of a government corporation regulating port operations in the country. Private property purchased by the National Government for expansion of an airport may also be titled in the name of the government agency tasked to administer the airport. Private property donated to a municipality for use as a town plaza or public school site may likewise be titled in the name of the municipality.106 All these properties become properties of the public domain, and if already registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529, remain registered land. There is no requirement or provision in any existing law for the de-registration of land from the Torrens System. Private lands taken by the Government for public use under its power of eminent domain become unquestionably part of the public domain. Nevertheless, Section 85 of PD No. 1529 authorizes the Register of Deeds to issue in the name of the National Government new certificates of title covering such expropriated lands. Section 85 of PD No. 1529 states "Sec. 85. Land taken by eminent domain. Whenever any registered land, or interest therein, is expropriated or taken by eminent domain, the National Government, province, city or municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right shall file for registration in the proper Registry a certified copy of the judgment which shall state definitely by an adequate description, the particular property or interest expropriated, the number of the certificate of title, and the nature of the public use. A memorandum of the right or interest taken shall be made on each certificate of title by the Register of Deeds, and where the fee simple is taken, a new certificate shall be issued in favor of the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right for the land so taken. The legal expenses incident to the memorandum of registration or issuance of a new certificate of title shall be for the account of the authority taking the land or interest therein." (Emphasis supplied) Consequently, lands registered under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 are not exclusively private or patrimonial lands. Lands of the public domain may also be registered pursuant to existing laws.

AMARI makes a parting shot that the Amended JVA is not a sale to AMARI of the Freedom Islands or of the lands to be reclaimed from submerged areas of Manila Bay. In the words of AMARI, the Amended JVA "is not a sale but a joint venture with a stipulation for reimbursement of the original cost incurred by PEA for the earlier reclamation and construction works performed by the CDCP under its 1973 contract with the Republic." Whether the Amended JVA is a sale or a joint venture, the fact remains that the Amended JVA requires PEA to "cause the issuance and delivery of the certificates of title conveying AMARI's Land Share in the name of AMARI."107 This stipulation still contravenes Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that private corporations "shall not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease." The transfer of title and ownership to AMARI clearly means that AMARI will "hold" the reclaimed lands other than by lease. The transfer of title and ownership is a "disposition" of the reclaimed lands, a transaction considered a sale or alienation under CA No. 141,108 the Government Auditing Code,109 and Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas also form part of the public domain and are also inalienable, unless converted pursuant to law into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the government are sui generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike other alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service. Alienable lands of the public domain, increasingly becoming scarce natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our ever-growing population. To insure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of inalienable natural resources of the State, or seek to circumvent the constitutional ban on alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations, do so at their own risk. We can now summarize our conclusions as follows: 1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and existing laws. 2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the commerce of man. 3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain. PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Under Article 1409112 of the Civil Code, contracts whose "object or purpose is contrary to law," or whose "object is outside the commerce of men," are "inexistent and void from the beginning." The Court must perform its duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, and therefore declares the Amended JVA null and void ab initio. Seventh issue: whether the Court is the proper forum to raise the issue of whether the Amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the government. Considering that the Amended JVA is null and void ab initio, there is no necessity to rule on this last issue. Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts, and this last issue involves a determination of factual matters. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing the Amended Joint Venture Agreement which is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio. SO ORDERED G.R. No. 68946 May 22, 1992 DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ANGELINA SARMIENTO, respondents. Marvil Hill for private respondent W. Topacio Garcia & Associates collaborating counsel for private respondent. Dollete, Blanco, Ejercito & Associates for movants.

After the filing of private respondent's Comment, this Court, in its resolution of 27 February 1985, 2 gave due course to the petition, considered the Comment as the Answer and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. The petitioner moved for leave to adopt the petition as his Memorandum 3 which this Court noted in its resolution of 17 April 1985. 4 Private respondent filed her Memorandum only on 8 December 1986, 5 after her attorneys were held in contempt of court and fined in the amount of P300.00. The pleadings of the parties disclose the following factual antecedents in this case: On 13 August 1970, private respondent and the spouses Placer A. Velasco and Socorro Busuego filed with the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bulacan, Branch V, at Sta. Maria, Bulacan, an application for the registration of title over Lot No. 1005 of the Cadastral Survey of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of 376,397 square meters. On 18 January 1971, private oppositors Angeles and Cirilo Amador filed their opposition on the ground that the land belongs to them. On 19 January 1971, an Order of special default against the whole world, with the exception of oppositors Angeles and Cirilo Amador and the municipal mayor of San Jose del Monte, was issued by the trial court. Upon the filing of an Opposition by the petitioner and upon motion by the Provincial Fiscal for the lifting of the order of special default and for the admission of the Opposition, the trial court issued an Order on 24 August 1971 granting the motion and admitting said Opposition. 6 Separate oppositions filed by Feliciano Santos, Ciriaco Maningas and Simeon Albarico were also admitted by the court after the lifting of the order of special default. 7 Subsequently, private respondent moved to drop as co-applicants spouses Placer Velasco and Socorro Busuego on the ground that they were made co-applicants because of a contract of services 8 between her and the spouses under which the latter agreed to shoulder all the litigation expenses and the cost of survey and attorney's fees in this case; the spouses failed to comply with their commitment. The trial court deemed said agreement validly rescinded by private respondent and considered her as "the only applicant in this case." 9 After hearing the application on its merits, the trial court handed down on 2 June 1982 a decision in favor of private respondent granting the registration of the lot in question, together with all the improvements thereon, in her name: . . . with the exception of the three (3) houses erected therein owned and possessed by her predecessors-in-interest, who are claimed (sic) to be tenants of the property, namely: Macario Cruz, Juan Reyes and Mariano Castillo. . . . subject, however, to the payment of real property taxes in arrears since 1971 as well as to the provisions of Presidential Decree Nos. 65 and 296, with respect to those portions of the perimeter bounded by the river, barrio and provincial roads, respectively. The decision is based on the trial court's findings of fact, to wit: . . . That the subject parcel of land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Angelina Sarmiento as early as 1965, under Tax

DAVIDE, JR., J.: Petitioner urges this Court to review and set aside the decision of 12 October 1984 of the then Intermediate Appellate Court 1 (now Court of Appeals) in A.C.-G.R. CV No. 00126 which affirmed the decision of 2 June 1982 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Land Registration Case No. (SM) N-167 granting the registration of a parcel of land with an area of 376,397 square meters, located in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, in favor of private respondent.

Declaration No. 8388 (Exhibit J), with an assessed value of P10,350.00. That the real property taxes from 1965 to 1970 were paid in full (Exhibit K). That a small portion of the subject parcel of land consisting of 94,000 sq. m. is devoted to agriculture while the rest is cogonland. That the subject parcel land was acquired by applicant Angelina Sarmiento from: 1) Juan Reyes, married to Avelina Emocling, who had been in possession of a portion of the subject land consisting of 168,000 sq. m. for 41 years prior to the transfer of their rights, interests, and participation over the same in favor of applicant Angelina Sarmiento, which transfer was made through a deed of absolute sale (Bilihang Lampasan at Patuluyan Exhibits G and G-1), executed on April 7, 1969, for and in consideration of P42,000.00. 2) Mariano Castillo, married to Petronila Robes, who had been in possession of a portion of the subject land, consisting of 14 hectares since 1948, until on August 16, 1965 said spouses transferred their rights, interests and participation over the eastern 1/2 portion of said 14-hectare property, in favor of applicant Angelina Sarmiento, for and in consideration of P1,500.00 (Exhibits I and I-1 Bilihang Lampasan at Patuluyan). 3) Mariano Castillo, married to Petronila Robes, who, by virtue of a deed if (sic) absolute sale executed by them on November 15, 1965, sold the remaining 7-hectare property covered by Exhibits I and I-1, to applicant Angelina Sarmiento, for and in consideration of P21,000.00; which deed of absolute sale, having been lost, was confirmed by vendor Mariano Castillo thru a Confirmatory Deed of Sale executed on April 18, 1969 (Exhibits H and H1). 4) Macario Cruz, married to Antonia Guilalas, who had been in possession of a portion of the subject land, consisting of 73,000 sq. m. more or less prior to the transfer of their rights, interest and participation in favor of applicant Angelina Sarmiento on March 31, 1969, for and in consideration of P18,750.00. xxx xxx xxx The testimonial evidence shows that the subject parcel of land was originally owned and possessed by Macario Cruz, spouses Juan Reyes and Avelina Emocling, the spouses Mariano Castillo and Petronila Robes, the two latter sets of spouses having been in possession as early as 1928 and 1948, respectively, during which time they possessed, occupied and cultivated their respective portions unmolested, openly, continuously, and in the concept of owners. That

by virtue of the aforesaid deeds of sale (Exhibits G, G-1, H, H-1, I and I-1), possessions over the same were transferred to the herein applicant. That, thereafter, said spouses remained in the same property, maintaining their houses and acting as tenants for the new owner, applicant Angelina Sarmiento. That applicant likewise introduced improvements on the property by fencing the same with barbed wire, planting crops and other fruit trees, and by constructing there a house of her own. The oral testimony of applicant Angelina Sarmiento, insofar as location, possession and ownership over the said parcel of land is concerned, was corroborated by the testimony (sic) of Victor Jarvinia and Enrique Buco, both claiming that they were with the group who conducted the survey of the subject property; and said Enrique Buco also declaring that he had known the subject land since 1932, he being the owner of an adjoining titled property. Witness Enrique Buco likewise claimed that the subject land is way beyond the perimeter of the titled property of oppositor 2nd Manila Newtown City Development Corporation, the latter's land being situated far from the subject land. xxx xxx xxx The subject parcel of land appears not to be within any military, naval, civil or a government reservation; nor is it traversed by any road, river or creek, except that it is bounded on the North and East, along lines 4 to 33 by the Katitinga River; and on the Southeast, along lines 34 to 40 by Dean Kabayo Barrio Road; on the South by Igay Provincial Road, along lines 40 to 44. 10 The Director of Lands, through the Office of the Solicitor General, seasonably appealed from said decision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which docketed the appeal as A.C.-G.R. CV No. 00126. The Director raised before it the following assignment of error: The lower court gravely erred in holding that the applicant and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner of the land applied for more than 30 years prior to the filing of the application. 11 In its decision promulgated on 12 October 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. It held follows: We find no merit in the appeal. While it may be true that the vendors of the portion of the land in question to the herein applicant did not show tax declaration, it has been clearly established that Macario Cruz and spouses Juan Reyes and Avelina Sarmiento (sic) and also spouses Mariano Castillo and Petronila Robes were in possession of the land in 1928 and 1948, respectively in concept of owners, without anybody molesting them. They introduced improvements by planting different kinds of trees and constructing houses thereon. When a person occupied (sic) a parcel of land under a claim of ownership making improvements and generally held (sic) himself out as owner of the land, it is only upon the most convincing testimony, in the absence of any competent documentary evidence, that the courts would be justified in declaring him to be the real owner thereof.

A person in the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of a certain lands (sic) for more than thirty years, in the concept of owner, is entitled to a confirmation of his title to said land. (Molina vs. De Bacud, L-20195, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 956). Accordingly, herein applicant continued the possession in concept of owner from her predecessors-in-interest. Moreover, the land in question was surveyed as Lot 1005 for the herein applicant for the cadastral survey of San Jose del Monte, without anybody else claiming ownership of said land. It further appears that the land in question is within the alienable and disposable land as certified to by the officials of the Bureau of Forest Development. It is for this reason that the oppositor Director of Lands did not introduce any evidence opposition (sic) and merely submitted the case for decision. We reiterate what we have said in previous decisions in similar cases that unless the government has serious grounds of opposition such as the fact that the land applied for is within a forest zone or government reservation, registration of agricultural lands within the alienable or disposable area should be encouraged to give more value to the land and this promotes their development rather than remain as idle lands.
12

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war of force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. 18 This section is the law on judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. By its very nature, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that he as an imperfect or incomplete title. Such is the duty of one who holds the affirmative side of an issue In Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, 19 this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., held: In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942. . . . Specifically, under paragraph (b) thereof, the applicant must prove that: (a) he or his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notirious possession and occupation of an agricultural land of the public domain; (b) such possession and occupation must be for a least thirty (30) years preceding the filing of the application; and (c) such possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. It must be underscored that the law speaks of "possession and occupation." Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the order. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for one to qualify under paragraph (b) of the aforesaid section, his possession of the land must not be mere fiction. As this Court stated, through then Mr. Justice Jose P. Laurel, in Lasam vs. The Director of Lands: 20 . . . Counsel for the applicant invokes the doctrine laid down by us in Ramos vs. Director of Lands (39 Phil. 175, 180). (See also Roales vs. Director of Lands, 51 Phil. 302, 304). But it should be observed that the application of the doctrine of constructive possession in that case is subject to certain qualifications, and this court was careful to observe that among these qualifications is "one particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion actually in possession of the claimant." While, therefore, "possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession", possession under paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, as amended by paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, is not gained by mere nominal claim. The mere planting of a sign or symbol of possession cannot justify a Magellan-like claim of dominion

Undaunted by this second defeat, the Director filed on 5 December 1984 this petition asserting that the respondent Court had decided a question of substance in a way not in accord with law and the applicable decisions of this Court. 13 The petition is impressed with merit. This Court will have to overturn the challenged decision, as well as that of the trial court. While the rule is well settled that findings of fact of the appellate court are conclusive upon this Court, 14 there are recognized exceptions thereto, among which is where the findings of fact are not supported by the record or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion. 15 This exception is present in this case insofar as the findings of the respondent Court and the trial court on the character of possession are concerned. It is not disputed that private respondent seeks registration of the questioned lot on the basis of paragraph (b), Section 48 of the Public Land Act, 16 as amended by R.A. No. 1942, 17 which reads as follows: Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: xxx xxx xxx

over an immense tract of territory. Possession as a means of acquiring ownership, while it may be constructive, is not a mere fiction. . . . Earlier, in Ramirez vs. The Director of Lands,
21

respondent and prove the character of their possession thereof. Instead, she presented Victor Jarvina and Enrique Buco, whose testimonies on direct and cross examinations are partly summarized by the petitioner as follows: Victor Jarvina testified that he knew the applicant (p. 4, tsn, June 20, 1977) who bought a parcel of land with an area of more than 37 hectares, located in Licau-Licau, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, from Macario Castillo and Juan Reyes (pp. 5-6, ibid); that he was with the surveyor when the survey was done; no person contested the survey; he identified the survey plan, Exhibit "F", the deed of sale executed by Juan Reyes, Exhibits "G" and "G-1", the deeds of sale executed by Mariano Castillo, Exhibits "H" and "H-1" and Exhibits "I" and "I-1" (pp. 7-11, ibid); the land was declared for taxation purposes by Angelina Sarmiento and the taxes were paid; he identified Exhibit "J", the tax declaration, and Exhibit "K", the tax receipt (pp. 12-13, ibid); after the properties were purchased by the applicant, her possession was never disturbed by any other person (pp. 4-7, tsn, July 29, 1977). On crossexamination, Victor Jarvina stated that he could no longer recall the date when the survey was made (pp. 14-19, ibid); the land was bought by the applicant from different persons, including Mariano Castillo, Juan Reyes, Macario Cruz and Feliciano Santos; he was present when the sales were made, and the vendors did not show any written document to prove that they owned the property, but they claimed to have been in possession of the same for ten (10) years (pp. 14-16, tsn, Sept. 16, 1977); the property is hilly and rolling and full of cogon, but a portion was planted with camote, corn and seasonal crops by the vendors; he came to know the (sic) property three (3) years before Angelina Sarmiento bought it in 1969 (pp. 20-22, ibid); Castillo had a house on the land but it was wrecked by a storn (sic), so that there was no more house existing on the land (p. 25, ibid). Enrique Buco testified that he had known the land subject of the case since 1932 because he owned a parcel of land adjoining it; he had known Angelina Sarmiento since 1950; since 1932, the land was in the possession of the parents of Juan Reyes, Luis Pascual, Macario Cruz, Feliciano Santos, Mariano Castillo, and a certain Arsenio, whose family name he did not know; the possession by the parents of Mariano Castillo and Juan Reyes was never disturbed by anyone; Mariano Castillo and his parents planted bananas, mango trees, palay and sweet potatoes, but he did not know how many hectares were cultivated (pp. 2-7, tsn, October 24, 1977); Juan Reyes and his parents planted two (2) hectares with palay, and the rest of the area with mango, caimito, avocado and langka trees, some of which were already fruit bearing; Mariano Castillo and Juan Reyes sold their rights over the land to Angelina Sarmiento; the land was surveyed by the cadastral team, and Mariano Castillo and Juan Reyes were present during the survey; and Castillo and Reyes remained in possession of the land as tenants of Angelina Sarmiento (pp. 7-13, ibid). On crossexamination, he admitted that in 1932, he and the parents of Mariano Castillo and Juan Reyes were just starting to clear up the area, and that only around three (3) hectares were cleared up by the parents of Castillo and Reyes (pp. 13-16, ibid); that Feliciano Santos was still in possession of a small portion of the land in question; they were not able to take possession of the land in question because it was already occupied by the Japanese forces; they returned to the land only after liberation (pp. 16-18, ibid); that his land adjoined the land in question on the east, adjoining the property of Isidro Cabacang and Roman Reyes, who were the ones appearing as adjoining owners in Exhibit

this Court noted:

. . . The mere fact of declaring uncultivated land for taxation purposes and visiting it every once in a while, as was done by him, does not constitute acts of possession. In the case of The Director of Lands vs. Reyes,
22

this Court also stated:

A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant, and the raising thereon of cattle, do not constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that sense, possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the State. Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. 23 It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; 24 exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; 25 and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.
26

Use of land is adverse when it is open and notorious.

27

Under the law, the only kind of interruption which does not affect the continuity of possession is that caused by war or force majeure. Private respondent does not pretend to be the original possessor of the property in question. She relies on the alleged possession of her predecessors-in-interest, namely: Juan Reyes, Mariano Castillo, Macario Cruz and Feliciano Santos. From Juan Reyes, she acquired a parcel of land located in Karahumi, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of 168,000 square meters as evidenced in a deed of sale executed on 7 April 1969. 28 From Mariano Castillo, she first acquired a portion, consisting of 7 hectares, of a parcel of land located in Licau-licau, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, per a deed of sale executed on 16 August 1965. 29 She purchased the remaining portion thereof, with an area of 7 hectares, allegedly on 15 November 1965, but she lost the deed of sale; however, Mariano Castillo subsequently executed a so-called Confirmatory Deed of Sale on 8 April 1969. 30 Per the findings of the trial court, the property purchased from Cruz on 31 March 1969 for P18,750.00 consists of 73,000 square meters. 31 No deed of sale was presented to prove this acquisition. There is no proof as to the area of the property allegedly purchased from Santos. None of private respondent's predecessors-in-interest declared for taxation purposes their alleged land holdings. Accordingly, they had never paid taxes thereon. It was only the private respondent who declared them in one (1) tax declaration, Tax Declaration No. 8388, on 18 September 1969. 32 Per this tax declaration, the land covered is located at Gaya-Gaya, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of 37.6 hectares, of which 9.4 hectares are ricelands while the remaining 28.2 hectares are cogonal. Juan Reyes, Mariano Castillo, Macario Cruz and Feliciano Santos were not presented by private respondent as witnesses during the hearing of her application. There can be no question that they were the best witnesses to identify the parcel they sold to the private

"F", the plan of lot 1005; that he left his land and stayed in Quezon City in 1973 because the security men of Puyat Enterprises were mauling many persons in the community; to avoid trouble he transferred his family to Quezon City (pp. 19-23, ibid); that the parents of Juan Reyes and Mariano Castillo cleared up a portion of the wooded area in 1932 and that was how they came into possession of their respective portions of the property; that he did not know the extent, in terms of square meters, of the land possessed by Castillo and Reyes; that the subject land was no longer occupied since two years ago because the people ran away (pp. 27-30, ibid). On redirect examination, Enrique Buco stated that at present only Mariano Castillo is staying on the land in question as an overseer of Angelina Sarmiento; and that the last time he went there was in April, 1978 (pp. 3-5, tsn, August 18, 1978). On re-cross-examination, he admitted that when he went to the land in question in April, 1978, he did not see anyone cultivating the property, and that Puyat Enterprises had built a factory near the property (pp. 6-7, ibid). 33 It was further established that from the Land Classification Report dated 8 August 1971, 34 only one-half (.5) of a hectare is planted with banana and fruit trees, while 36 hectares are "grass land." From the foregoing, serious doubts are cast on the claim of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the predecessors-in-interest of private respondent. As earlier stated, none of them even thought of declaring their respective areas for taxation purposes. While it is true that tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. 35 The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. Added to this, as certified to by Jarvina, who claimed to have been present when the sales were made to private respondent, none of the vendors could show any written document to prove their ownership of land; they merely alleged that they have been possession of the same for ten (10) years. In the case of the 73,000 square meters (7.3 hectares) purportedly purchased from Macario Cruz, no deed of sale from the latter was presented. Interestingly enough, without this acquisition, private respondent would only have more or less 308,000 square meters, or 30.8 hectares, which she acquired from Juan Reyes and Mariano Castillo, and not the 376,397 square meters, or 37.6 hectares which she applied for. No plausible explanation was offered as to why Macario Cruz did not or could not execute a deed of sale. There is as well no evidence concerning the area of the property purchased from Feliciano Santos and no explanation why no deed of sale was executed by him. Then too, there is absolutely no credible testimony describing the boundaries and extent of the areas each vendor had allegedly occupied before the sale to the private respondent. On the contrary, the testimony of Enrique Buco throws more doubts thereon. He claims that the land applied for was, since 1932, in the possession of the parents of Juan Reyes, Luis Pascual, Macario Cruz, Feliciano Santos, Mariano Castillo and a certain Arsenio. If that be so, then the parents of Luis Pascual and Arsenio have a claim on portions of the property applied for. Private respondent miserably failed to show that she also acquired such portions or that they were earlier sold to any of her vendors. Respondent Court considered the year 1932 as the starting point of the possession of the predecessors-in-interest of private respondent. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of Enrique Buco, such a conclusion has no basis. As a matter of fact, the trial court itself found and so held as follows:

The testimonial evidence shows that the subject parcel of land was originally owned and possessed by Macario Cruz, spouses Juan Reyes and Avelina Emocling, and spouses Mariano Castillo and Petronila Robes, the two latter sets spouses having been in possession as early as 1928 and 1948, respectively, during which time they possessed, occupied and cultivated their respective portions unmolested, openly, continuously, and in the concept of owners. . . . 36 If the Castillo spouses' possession actually commenced in 1948, as found by the trial court, it goes without saying that their possession of the 14-hectare portion was only for seventeen (17) years since they sold the same to the private respondent in 1965. Tacking this possession to that of the latter as of the time the application was filed on 13 August 1970, it is obvious that the 30-year possession required by paragraph (b), Section 48 of the Public Land Act was not satisfied. Further, if indeed private respondent has a genuine claim of possession over the property in question, We find no reason why, as reflected in the Land Classification Report dated 8 August 1971, 37 or barely a year after the filing of the application, only one-half (1/2) hectare of the vast area applied for was in fact planted with nothing but banana and fruit trees while thirty-six (36) hectares thereof are "grass land". These fruit trees are not identified. If the testimony of private respondent to be believed, these could be kamias, santol and mangoes which, according to her, were existing at the time she bought the property. Also, if the testimony of Enrique Buco is to be believed, these fruit trees could be mango trees allegedly planted by Mariano Castillo and his parents or, mango, kaimito, avocado and langka trees planted by Juan Reyes and his parents. This Court can not accept these testimonies at face value. The respondent court and the trial court should not have been credulous enough to have given them full faith and credit. In her own Tax Declaration No. 8388 dated 18 September 1966 and which she secured sometime after she allegedly purchased the property and almost a year before she filed the application, private respondent merely declared that the property is comprised of riceland with an area of 9.4 hectares and cogonal land with an area of 28.2 hectares. the existence of this 9.4-hectare riceland is even doubtful. Private respondent herself admitted that the land is not conducive to the planting of palay, 38 the portions cultivated by her vendors Castillo, Reyes and Cruz were scattered in different places and the area each cultivated could not be more than one (1) hectare. 39 Upon the other hand, as earlier mentioned, Enrique Buco only mentioned two (2) hectares planted to palay by Juan Reyes and his parents. Another factor which impairs the bona fides of private respondent is her failure to pay the real estate taxes after the filing of the application. She made a payment on 26 September 1969 40 after declaring the property for taxation purposes on 18 September 1969, 41 and only for the taxable years 1965 to 1969. Evidently, such payment was made only for purposes of the application. A picayune amount was involved annually. For the period beginning in 1965 and ending in 1969, she paid P517.50 only. She did not want to part with any sum thereafter until it would become certain that the court would award the property to her. Such an attitude is an execration of good faith. One last point which bears heavily against the claim of private respondent is the fact that she had the temerity to make it appear in the application that she and the spouses Placer Velasco and Socorro Busuego are co-owners of the property who have registerable title thereto and who must, therefore, be awarded the property. This claim is of course deliberate falsehood for, as private respondent later revealed when she decided to drop the spouses as co-applicants, the latter do not have any claim of either possession or ownership over the property. They were made co-applicants only because they agree to shoulder all the expenses of litigation, including the cost of survey and attorney's fees. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that such an agreement was in fact made with the spouses, it was not necessary that they be made co-applicants. The interest of the spouses could still be effectively protected without sacrificing the truth. To this Court's

mind, there was a clear attempt on the part of the private respondent and the spouses to deceive the trial court. Unfortunately, the trial court glossed over this point and impliedly declared as validly rescinded the contract with the said spouses. The foregoing disquisitions sufficiently prove that private respondent is a smart land speculator who saw in the land applied for not just the blades of cogon grass, the color of which changes from green during the rainy season to brown during summer, but huge profits as business, industry and the general population move outward from the metropolitan area. It is incumbent upon land registration courts to exercise extreme caution and prudent care in deciding so-called applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles over lands of the public domain; if they are lax in these proceedings, they may, wittingly or unwittingly, be used by unscrupulous land speculators in their raid of the public domain. More deserving citizens should be given priority in the acquisition of idle lands of the public domain. These could serve as relocation sites for the urban poor. They may be disturbed to landless farm workers. In so doing, the ends of social justice, appropriately the centerpiece of the 1987 Constitution, could be further enhanced. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the respondent Court of 12 October 1984 in A.C.-G.R. CV No. 00126 is hereby REVERSED. The decision of the trial court of 2 June 1982 in Land Registration Case No. (SM) N-167, LRC Record No. N-39192 is likewise REVERSED and said case it hereby ordered DISMISSED. Costs against private respondent. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 129682 March 21, 2002

days to file their written opposition as regards Lot No. 2 of Plan Psu-174406. Upon motion of petitioners predecessors, Lot No. 2 of Plan Psu-174406 was removed from the coverage of the application. The remaining parcel of land covered by Lot No. 1 has an area of 3,804.261 square meters. On June 15, 1967, the Court of First Instance promulgated a decision confirming petitioners title to the property. On October 23, 1967, OCT No. O-12665 was issued in the name of petitioners.1wphi1.nt Almost eighteen (18) years later, or on September 12, 1985, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the Intermediate Appellate Court an action to declare the proceedings in LRC Case No. 91-G, LRC Record No. N-19930 before the Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon null and void, and to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 0-12665 and titles derived therefrom as null and void, to direct the register of deeds to annul said certificates of title, and to confirm the subject land as part of the public domain.6 The Republic claimed that at the time of filing of the land registration case and of rendition of the decision on June 15, 1967, the subject land was classified as timberland under LC Project No. 15-B of San Narciso, Quezon, as shown in BF Map No. LC-1180; hence inalienable and not subject to registration. Moreover, petitioners title thereto can not be confirmed for lack of showing of possession and occupation of the land in the manner and for the length of time required by Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended. Neither did petitioners have any fee simple title which may be registered under Act No. 496, as amended. Consequently, the Court of First Instance did not acquire jurisdiction over the res and any proceedings had therein were null and void.7 On the other hand, petitioners raised the special defenses of indefeasibility of title and res judicata. They argued that due to the lapse of a considerable length of time, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in the land registration case has become final and conclusive against the Republic. Moreover, the action for reversion of the land to the public domain is barred by prior judgment.8 In a decision promulgated on June 27, 1986, the Intermediate Appellate Court held that the land in question was forestral land; hence not registrable. There was no evidence on record to show that the land was actually and officially delimited and classified as alienable or disposable land of the public domain. Therefore, the Court of First Instance did not acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application for registration and to decide the same. Consequently, the action to declare null and void the June 15, 1967 decision for lack of jurisdiction did not prescribe. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in respondents, and as prayed for: favor of petitioner and against

NESTOR PAGKATIPUNAN and ROSALINA MAAGAS-PAGKATIPUNAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This is a petition for review of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals nullifying the decision of the Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon2 which confirmed petitioners title over the lots subject of the instant petition. Petitioners further seek to annul and set aside the resolutions3 of the Court of Appeals denying their urgent motion to recall the judgment entered4 in the land registration case. The antecedent facts are as follows: Sometime in November 1960, petitioners predecessors-in-interest, spouses Getulio Pagkatipunan and Lucrecia Esquires, filed with the Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon an application for judicial confirmation and registration of their title to Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-174406 and Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-112066, all located in San Narciso, Quezon.5 On May 4, 1961, the Court of First Instance entered an order of default against the whole world, except spouses Felicisimo Almace and Teodulo Medenilla who were given ten (10)

(a) The Decision dated June 15, 1967 in LRC Case No. 91-G, LRC Record No. N19930 is hereby declared null and void, and accordingly set aside; (b) Original Certificate of Title No. O-12665, and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-84439, T-93857 and T-117618 deriving therefrom, as well as any other derivative titles, are declared null and void; (c) The respondent Register of Deeds for Quezon Province is ordered to cancel said titles; and

(d) The parcels of land covered thereby are ordered reverted to the State. Without pronouncement as to costs."9 On July 16, 1986, petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the afore-cited decision reiterating that the land in question was agricultural because it was possessed and cultivated as such long before its classification as timberland by the Bureau of Forestry in 1955. Petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation of said land for agricultural and cattle raising purposes as far back as the Spanish regime. Following the doctrine in Oracoy v. Director of Lands,11 private interest had intervened and petitioners acquired vested rights which can no longer be impaired by the subsequent classification of the land as timberland by the Director of Forestry. On August 20, 1986, the appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.12 On December 12, 1986, the decision of June 27, 1986 attained finality and judgment was entered in the book of entries of judgments.13 On April 2, 1987, petitioners filed an urgent motion to set aside entry of judgment on the ground that Atty. Cirilo E. Doronila, petitioners counsel of record, was not furnished a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.14 In the absence of such notice, the decision of the appellate court did not become final and executory. On October 22, 1987, the Court of Appeals set aside and lifted the entry of judgment in CA-G. R. SP No. 07115 and directed the clerk of court to furnish petitioners counsel a copy of the August 20, 1986 resolution.15 For petitioners inaction despite service of the August 20, 1986 resolution, the June 27, 1986 decision became final and executory. On March 2, 1988, entry of judgment was again made in the land registration case. On September 4, 1995, Atty. Doronila withdrew his appearance as counsel for petitioners.16 On April 1, 1996, petitioners, through their new counsel, Atty. George I. Howard, filed with the Court of Appeals an urgent motion to recall the entry of judgment,17 which was denied by the appellate court on December 16, 1996.18 The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on the ground that it raised arguments already discussed and resolved in the urgent motion to recall entry of judgment.19 Hence, the instant petition for review.20 Petitioners claim that their title to the land became incontrovertible and indefeasible one (1) year after issuance of the decree of registration. Hence, the Republics cause of action was barred by prescription and res judicata, proceedings having been initiated only after about 18 years from the time the decree of registration was made. Contrary to the appellate courts findings, the land is agricultural and the inclusion and classification thereof by the Bureau of Forestry in 1955 as timberland can not impair the vested rights acquired by petitioners predecessors-in-interest who have been in open, continuous, adverse and public possession of the land in question since time immemorial and for more than thirty (30) years prior to the filing of the application for registration in 1960.
10

Hence, the Court of Appeals committed grave error when it denied their motion to set aside entry of judgment in the land registration case. The petition lacks merit. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.21 Evidence extant on record showed that at the time of filing of the application for land registration and issuance of the certificate of title over the disputed land in the name of petitioners, the same was timberland and formed part of the public domain, as per certification issued by the Bureau of Forest Development on April 1, 1985, thus: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that the tract of land situated in Vigo Cantidang, San Narciso, Quezon, containing an area of 3,804.261 square meters as described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-117618 x x x registered in the name of Spouses Nestor E. Pagkatipunan and Rosalina Magas is verified to be within the Timberland Block -B, Project No. 15-B of San Narciso, Quezon, certified and declared as such on August 25, 1955 per BFD Map LC-1880. The land is, therefore, within the administrative jurisdiction and control of the Bureau of Forest Development, and not subject to disposition under the Public Land Law. [Sgd.]ARMANDO Supervising Cartographer22 CRUZ

This fact was even admitted by petitioners during the proceedings before the court a quo on March 10, 1986, when they confirmed that the land has been classified as forming part of forest land, albeit only on August 25, 1955.23 Since no imperfect title can be confirmed over lands not yet classified as disposable or alienable, the title issued to herein petitioners is considered void ab initio.24 Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with conservation of such patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all lands otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to State.25 To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by applicant that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.26 the the not the the

In the case at bar, there was no evidence showing that the land has been reclassified as disposable or alienable. Before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from the government. Even rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.27 Declassification of forest land is an express and positive act of Government.28 It cannot be presumed. Neither should it be ignored nor deemed waived.29 It calls for proof.30

The court a quo found registrable title in favor of petitioners based on the Republics failure to show that the land is more valuable as forest land than for agricultural purposes, a finding which is based on a wrong concept of what is forest land. There is a big difference between "forest" as defined in the dictionary and "forest or timber land" as a classification of land of the public domain in the Constitution. One is descriptive of what appears on the land while the other is a legal status, a classification for legal purposes. The "forest land" started out as a "forest" or vast tracts of wooded land with dense growths of trees and underbrush. However, the cutting down of trees and the disappearance of virgin forest do not automatically convert the land of the public domain from forest or timber land to alienable agricultural land.31 The classification of forest land, or any land for that matter, is descriptive of its legal nature or status, and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.32 A person cannot enter into forest land and by the simple act of cultivating a portion of that land, earn credits towards an eventual confirmation of imperfect title. The Government must first declare the forest land to be alienable and disposable agricultural land before the year of entry, cultivation, and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted for purposes of an imperfect title.33 As ruled in the case of Heirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of Forestry:34 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. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. Moreover, the original text of Section 48 (b), Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act, which took effect on December 1, 1936, expressly provided that only agricultural land of the public domain are subject to acquisitive prescription, to wit: Section 48. x x x (a) x x x (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, except as against the Government, since July twentysix, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is clear that the applicant must prove not only his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land either since time immemorial or for

the period prescribed therein, but most importantly, he must prove that the land is alienable public land.35 In the case at bar, petitioners failed to do so. Petitioners contention that the Republic is now barred from questioning the validity of the certificate of title issued to them considering that it took the government almost eighteen (18) years to assail the same is erroneous. It is a basic precept that prescription does not run against the State.36 The lengthy occupation of the disputed land by petitioners cannot be counted in their favor, as it remained part of the patrimonial property of the State, which property, as stated earlier, is inalienable and indisposable.37 In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals did not err when it set aside the June 15, 1967 decision of the court a quo and ordered that the subject lot be reverted back to the public domain. Since the land in question is unregistrable, the land registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the same. Any proceedings had or judgment rendered therein is void and is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment. Consequently, the Court of Appeals rightfully denied petitioners motion to set aside the judgment rendered on December 12, 1986, in the land registration case.1wphi1.nt WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 1986 in AC-G.R. SP No. 07115, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.