ART 12 SEC 2 1987 CONSTITUTION
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. The State may directly
undertake such activities, or it may enter into coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital
is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be
for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided
by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization
of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreignowned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general
welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State
shall promote the development and use of local
scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every
contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution.
●
●
●
pertains to the country’s natural resources
Exploration, development, utilization = under
control and supervision of the State = to ensure
that its usage is for the common good and the
benefits derived therefrom are shared among
citizens
State = responsible for regulating and
managing to avoid depletion, misuse, or abuse
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
● Principle of Jura Regalia
● Derived from Spanish colonial law
● All lands and natural resources within the
country are owned by the State, represented
by the government
● Individuals or entities can only hold rights to
use or possess the resources through legal
means = titles or lease
● Alienable lands = not owned by state or a
private
individual/entity,
available
for
disposition
PUBLIC DOMAIN
● Refers to resources or assets that are not
owned by any individual or entity
● Available for use and enjoyment by everyone
w/out need for permission or payment
●
●
Can be in the form of creative works,
knowledge, land, natural resources
Free from copyright, patent, or other forms of
legal ownership allowing for unrestricted
access, use, distribution
ART 12 SEC 3 1987 CONSTITUTION
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 twenty-five 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.
●
●
●
●
private corporations/associations that are not
at least 60% owned by Filipino citizens are
prohibited from owning land
acquiring or holding leases on lands for a
period exceeding 25 years, with a possible
renewal of not more than 25 years and not to
exceed 1thousand hectares
Congress = power to determine which land
may be acquired or leased and the conditions
therefor
aims to ensure that the ownership and control
of land and natural resources remain primarily
in the hands of Filipino citizens to promote
national sovereignty and economic selfsufficiency
CASES
REPUBLIC VS. TRI-PLUS CORP.
GR.NO.150000 | SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
JUSTICE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
FACTS:
April 30, 1997 - respondent through its president filed
with MTC Cebu an Application for Registration of Title
over 2 parcels of lands located at Brgy. Tayud,
Consolacion, Cebu.
Respondent alleged in its application that it is the
owner in fee simple (total ownership of a piece of land
and all properties in it) including improvements
thereon, having acquired the same through purchase;
and that it is in actual, continuous, public, notorious,
exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject
properties in the concept of an owner for more than 30
years, including that of its predecessors-in-interest
September 4, 1997 - MTC received an opposition to
the Application for Registration filed by the Republic
through the OSG
Grounds:
1. that neither the applicant nor its predecessors-ininterest have been in OCEN possession and
occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945
or prior thereto
2. that the muniments of title submitted by the applicant
which consists, among others, of tax declarations and
receipts of tax payments, do not constitute competent
and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the
land applied for
3. that the claim of ownership in fee simple on the
basis of a Spanish title or grant may no longer be
availed of by the applicant because it failed to file an
appropriate application for registration in accordance
with the provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
892
4. the subject parcels of land are portions of the public
domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines
and are not subject to private appropriation
September 19, 1997 - respondent presented
documentary evidence to prove compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements of the law
-
A manifestation and motion was filed by the
heirs of Toribio Pepito - prayong for 10 days
within which they can file opposition = failed to
file opposition
MTC commissioned its clerk of court to receive
evidence from the applicant (tri-plus)
JUDGMENT OF MTC
February 26, 1998 - affirmed, in favor of tri plus, entitled
that its title be confirmed under the provisions of the
Torrens System of Registration
JUDGEMENT OF CA
OSG appealed with the CA, which affirmed the
judgement of MTC.
Petitioner contends that since the applicant failed to
discharge the burden of proving that the subject
properties are alienable and disposable, there is no
basis for the CA to rule that these properties are private
lands.
3 errors:
1. (SC disagree) Petitioner contends that the CA erred
in relying on the original survey plan approved by the
Lands Management Services of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) when it
ruled that the applicant was able to duly establish the
identity of Lot 1061. This reliance, petitioner argues, is
mistaken considering that the Report of the Director on
Registration of the LRA pointed to a discrepancy in the
bearings and distances of the boundaries which
separate Lot 1061 from an adjoining land, Lot 1058.
This discrepancy, petitioners submit, casts doubt on
the identity of the land subject of the application for
registration. Petitioner then concludes that if there is
uncertainty in the metes and bounds of the property
sought to be titled, the trial court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Hence,
the proceedings before the trial court, including its
decision granting the application for registration, are
void.
> Respondent’s argument: respondent contends that it
was able to prove the identity of Lot 1061 with certainty.
While it admits the discrepancy in the bearings and
distances which form the boundary between Lot 1061
and the adjoining Lot 1058, respondent contends that
such discrepancy is merely technical in nature because
Lots 1058 and 1061 remain the same and that there is
neither an increase nor decrease in the area of the
subject lot sought to be titled; and that what was
required by the LRA in its Report was for the applicant
to correct and adjust the bearings and distances of Lot
1061 in order to conform to the boundaries of Lot 1058.
> SC says: The submission in evidence of the original
tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of
Lands, in cases for application of original registration of
land is a mandatory requirement. The reason for this
rule is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure
that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion
thereof already covered by a previous land registration,
and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped
by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. The
failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to
petitioner's application for registration. However, in the
more recent cases, the Court ruled that while the best
evidence to identify a piece of land for registration
purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the
Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management
Services of the DENR), blueprint copies and other
evidence could also provide sufficient identification.
2. petitioner argues that the CA erred in holding that
the applicant was able to prove that the subject
properties are alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain. Petitioner contends that a mere notation
appearing in the survey plans of the disputed
properties showing that the subject lands had been
classified as alienable and disposable on June 25,
1963 is not sufficient to establish the nature and
character of these lands. Petitioner asserts that there
should be a positive act on the part of the government,
such as a certification from the DENR, to prove that the
said lands are indeed alienable and disposable.
Petitioner further contends that even if the subject
properties were classified as alienable and disposable
on June 25, 1963, the law, nonetheless, requires that
such classification should have been made on June 12,
1945 or earlier.
> Respondent also argues that the notations appearing
in the survey plans of the subject properties serve as
sufficient proof that these lands are alienable and
disposable. Respondent asserts that the survey plans
were duly approved by the DENR, Lands Management
Services whose official acts are presumed to be in
accordance with law.
3. petitioner contends that since the applicant failed to
discharge the burden of proving that the subject
properties are alienable and disposable, there is no
basis for the CA to rule that these properties are private
lands.
> respondent argues that its predecessor-in-interest's
continuous, actual, adverse and peaceful possession
of the subject properties in the concept of an owner for
a period of more than 30 years, coupled with the fact
that they declared these lands in their name, gives a
strong presumption in respondent's favor that the
subject properties no longer form part of the public
domain.
ISSUE: WoN the lands in question are alienable and
disposable
RULING: No. Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended, provides that the classification and
reclassification of public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest land is the prerogative of
the Executive Department. Under the Regalian
doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all
lands of the public domain belong to the State, which
is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of
land.24 All lands not appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State.25 Accordingly, public lands not shown to have
been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural
land or alienated to a private person by the State
remain part of the inalienable public domain.
It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must
be presented to establish that the land subject of the
application is alienable or disposable. In the present
case, the only evidence to prove the character of the
subject lands as required by law is the notation
appearing in the Advance Plan stating in effect that the
said properties are alienable and disposable. However,
this is hardly the kind of proof required by law. 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 statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification from the
Government that the lands applied for are alienable
and disposable. In the case at bar, while the Advance
Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands
Management Services of the DENR, the certification
refers only to the technical correctness of the survey
plotted in the said plan and has nothing to do
whatsoever with the nature and character of the
property surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a
certification from the proper government agency to
prove that the lands subject for registration are indeed
alienable and disposable.
As to the second
requirement, respondent and its predecessors-ininterest failed to prove that they had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the
subject properties under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945 or earlier, as required by law.
DENR VS. YAP (meritorious)
G.R.NO. 167707 | OCTOBER 8, 2008
JUSTICE REYES
SACAY VS. DENR (non-meritorious)
G.R.NO. 173775
FACTS: G.R.NO.167707
April 14, 1976 - DENR approved the National
Reservation of Boracay Island, which identified several
lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons.
November 10, 1978 - Former Pres. Marcos issued PD
1801 declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and
marine reserves under the administration of Philippine
Tourism Authority.
Respondent filed a petition for declaratory relief in RTC
Aklan claiming that PD 1801 and Circular 3-82
precluded them from filing an application for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes.
They further alleged that PD 1801 and Circular 3-82
raised doubts on their right to secure titles over their
occupied lands, and declared that they themselves and
their predecessors-in-interest have been in OCEN
possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12,
1945 or since time immemorial (declared for tax
purposes and paid realty taxes)
Respondents posited
that PD 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.
Republic through OSG opposed the petition. 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 PD 705 or the
Revised Forestry Code as amended. The OSG
maintained that respondents-claimants’ reliance on PD
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.
JUDGEMENT OF RTC
July 14, 1999 - in favor of respondents
> The Court declares that PD 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. It ruled
that neither PD 1801 nor PTA Circular No. 3-82
mentioned that lands in Boracay were inalienable or
could not be the subject of disposition. The Circular
itself recognized private ownership of lands. 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.
JUDGEMENT OF CA
December 9, 2004 - affirmed RTC’s decision
FACTS: G.R.NO. 173775
May 22, 2006 - during the pendency of GR 167707,
Former Pres. Arroyo issued PD 1064 classifying
Boracay Island 400 hectares of reserved forest land
and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land (alienable and
disposable)
August 10, 2006 - petitioners and other landowners in
Boracay filed an original petition for prohibition,
mandamus, and nullification of PD 1064 alleging that it
infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of
boracay. They further alleged that they have been in
OCEN possession since time immemorial.
Republic through OSG opposed the petition. 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.
November 21, 2006 - SC ordered the consolidation of
the 2 petitions as they principally involve the same
issues on the land classification of Boracay Island.
ISSUE: WoN private claimants (respondentsclaimants in G.R. No. 167707 and petitionersclaimants in G.R. No. 173775) have a right to secure
titles over their occupied portions in Boracay
RULING: The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands
of the public domain belong to the State, that the State
is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land
and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the
1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. All lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State.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.
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.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and
disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption
of State ownership, the Court has time and again
emphasized that there must be a positive act of the
government, such as an official proclamation,
declassifying inalienable public land into disposable
land for agricultural or other purposes. 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. 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. It was Proclamation
No. 1064 of 2006 which positively declared part of
Boracay as alienable and opened the same to private
ownership.
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.
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.